Guess where the DOMA brief comes from...

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 2:16 AM GMT
    Supposedly, Scott Simpson, a leftover from the Bush administration who apparently was instrumental in crafting the administration's defense of the partial birth abortion ban.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/14/742492/-DOMA:-In-Case-I-Wasnt-Clear-...



    Why would they keep this guy around, knowing no good would come of it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 2:54 AM GMT
    That is amazing! I am flabbergasted!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 8:07 AM GMT
    Ok, I gotta go back and re-read that again as well as the original linked in this one. I remember a bit about John Roberts (after he was confirmed), but I don't see anything about Scott Simpson. Who is he? I think I may have missed something. icon_cry.gif
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 3:01 PM GMT
    Here's another...

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html

    ET - the guy is a lawyer who works for the Justice Department - not an actual judge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 3:28 PM GMT
    And Eric Holder doesn't know who is working for him? And Obama hasn't said "Eric, you got some 'xplainin' to do."
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 3:33 PM GMT
    ErikTaurean saidAnd Eric Holder doesn't know who is working for him? And Obama hasn't said "Eric, you got some 'xplainin' to do."


    When a new administration comes in, it's normal for many high-level bureaucrats loyal to the prior administration to remain at their posts. It's simply not feasible for a president to replace the entire DOJ. However, part of a president's (not to mention his cabinet's) job is to "lead" the people under their command. Clearly, that was not being done here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 3:46 PM GMT
    I find it curious that a short time before this brief was filed, Dick Cheney came out with his surprising defense of gay unions. Now I have already read that the previous Bush Admin had left behind a number of "sleeper agents" who are in touch with former Bushies, for the purpose of continuing Bush policy and undermining the Obama Administration.

    I understand it's SOP for many appointees to remain in place at the beginning of a new Admin, if only because of the impracticality of replacing them all at once (although Bush did an atypically quick purge of Clintonites at the start of his own first term). What's different is the rumors that the former Bush appointees were being coordinated in their efforts, and that the person most often named was none other than Cheney.

    If Cheney had foreknowledge of this brief, were his comments intended to further hurt Obama with gays? If Cheney, of all people, could speak in defense of some gay issues, how worse would Obama look when this offensive brief was released publicly a few weeks later?

    But coincidence is not proof, and so I hope some good investigative reporters will look into it, and see if any real evidence exists. If Cheney or any others are secretly pulling strings, or even receiving confidential information from Bush appointees, these could be criminal activities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
    ErikTaurean saidOk, I gotta go back and re-read that again as well as the original linked in this one. I remember a bit about John Roberts (after he was confirmed), but I don't see anything about Scott Simpson. Who is he? I think I may have missed something. icon_cry.gif


    This might also help

    http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/mormon-bush-holdover-filed-anti-gay.html
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 4:04 PM GMT
    Red,

    To me, the Obama admin still owns this - no matter what Cheney had to do with it. It probably wasn't even Cheney. He's always been a moderate on gay rights. Tying people up, pumping them full of drugs, and sending them off to secret CIA interrogation camps is more his thing.

    The Obama administration somehow decided to let the wolf guard the hen house, and that is poor judgment for which a whole slew of people need to resign.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jun 18, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said, "If Cheney had foreknowledge of this brief, were his comments intended to further hurt Obama with gays? If Cheney, of all people, could speak in defense of some gay issues, how worse would Obama look when this offensive brief was released publicly a few weeks later?"


    I don't think so because the outrage and disappointment is based against Obama's promises and the expectations that he created and nothing to do with Cheney's recent surprising remarks in "support" of gays. We would have reacted to the DOMA brief the same way we do now even if Cheney hadn't said what he said.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
    styrgan saidRed,

    To me, the Obama admin still owns this - no matter what Cheney had to do with it. It probably wasn't even Cheney. He's always been a moderate on gay rights. Tying people up, pumping them full of drugs, and sending them off to secret CIA interrogation camps is more his thing.

    The Obama administration somehow decided to let the wolf guard the hen house, and that is poor judgment for which a whole slew of people need to resign.

    Certainly a plausible explanation for what happened. Yet I was struck by Cheney saying something that still seemed out of character for his more recent public statements, and so soon before this brief was filed.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 4:21 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    styrgan saidTying people up, pumping them full of drugs, and sending them off to secret CIA interrogation camps is more his thing.

    You make it sound like an amusing fetish. icon_cool.gif


    Amusing??

    That would be hot!!!!!

    icon_wink.gif
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jun 18, 2009 4:28 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidYet I was struck by Cheney saying something that still seemed out of character for his more recent public statements, and so soon before this brief was filed.


    If you look at Cheney's positions on gay rights issues, he has always been further to left than the rest of the Republican party. He made a similar comment in 2004 about gay marriage being an issue for the states, while remaining in favor of DADT.

    It doesn't seem that his position has changed at all over the last four years.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Dick_Cheney_Civil_Rights.htm

    In fact, on some social issues, like stem cell research, Cheney has shown himself to be more in line with the libertarian-wing of the Republican party. I think had it not been for the illegal wiretapping and the waterboarding and the secret prison camps, he would still be in that wing - as opposed to his now-sealed title of neoconservative grandfather.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2009 4:35 PM GMT
    Thanks Styrgan and xuaerb for the info. Fuel for my video letter, though I am primarily concentrating on DADT first. Oh, styrgan, I will forgive the Aunt Jemima comment...tsk, tsk, tsk....icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif