you cited the scalia dissent in the case of the consumer financial protection bureau where you gutted that agency. and in the 2011-7 sky case you dissented from a decision of the affordable care act and repeated over and over again and you said, under the constitution the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional. even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. your words. of course, the unitary executive theory was the basis of president bush s december 30th, 2005, signing statement claiming the authority to override the mccain torture amendment. yesterday i asked you what comments you made on the signing statement as president bush s staff secretary. senator feinstein asked a similar question this morning. what you told me is i can t
outside american thinking. what i am getting at is he is the one that went along with the saturday night massacre. to get what he wanted to protect from prosecution. a view of the president s power, it is called the unitary executive theory, it is rooted in a dissent by scalia. just this year, judge kavanaugh differing with the supreme court majority. keep citing this scalia dissent. he said of all the decisions, all the decisions that he thinks should be overturned, it is that decision where a majority of the supreme court said it was
and no one doubted the constitution ality. three years earlier we freed the slave. so that s settled. often i agree with the right that the court over reaches and starts making legislation. but also the hard fast rule this is the way it always has been so it has to stay that way. i don t get that too. i do think his scalia s dis sent is a great name for a sex book. let s talk about polygamy. i think is 100% okay to ask why it is not constitutional after the ruling. there was a very serious story today making the case in freddie deboer. why do you think i like to
yeah. but what the president and the attorney general have said, fulfilling the court s command, is that though the states may discriminate, the federal government will no longer discriminate. on your federal tax return. so couples in louisiana who are illegally married in new york or iowa may be discriminated by louisiana until we finish our job, but the federal government won t discriminate. so they will receive access to the important federal safety net. that s part of the tangible protections that are so important. this is a national rule. is this as big as it could have been? obviously, if they would have done a 50-state solution, but i don t think any of us were expecting that. but i think to piggyback off of what evan was saying, if you look at the doma opinion and the scalia dissent, he actually does a mad lib, essentially, where we strikes out words from passages referring to doma and subs in the state. and he says, if you do this man lib of subbing out a state ban
gave as gene robinson said the best they could give on affirmative action this week. that s too good. a thomas roberts court rainbow rulings so says the usa today. pretty shocking turn of events. it s striking. go back to roberts and this streak of pragmatism even when dealing with obama care, finding a way to keep a law passed by congress in place and here, recognizing that the country s really not ready to decide the question do gays and lesbians have a right to marry, given there are so many states that oppose it. but certainly paving the way with this majority opinion for a flood of new litigation to oppose the state measures that oppose gay marriage. you saw in the scalia dissent, the two real views here and this is going to be more litigation and certainly going to be the new battle line of politics. i think, you know, you ve been