Is it possible that the admin is pushing arguments that if feels are non-starters as a way to get the court to address those arguments?
Posted by
TWuG
Jun 16 '09, 11:00
|
"It isn't a violation of equal protection" being a way of saying "please say it *is* a violation so we can say the courts are finding it unconstitutional" which would give it cover to offer a piece of repeal legislation?
I'm trying to find a reason behind an apparent 180 that explains how it might actually be a tactical maneuver to actually achieve the originally stated goal of repealing DOMA. Because I want to believe this is the president who could achieve it.
|
Responses:
|