John Roberts Takes A Gratuitous Swipe At Obama Over DOMA.

[Bill USA]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/john-roberts-swipes-obama-doma.php?ref=fpb

Chief Justice John Roberts took a swipe at President Obama during oral arguments Wednesday, arguing that the president should stop executing the parts of the Defense of Marriage Act he deems unconstitutional rather than relying on the courts to pave the way.

“If he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” Roberts said of Obama, “and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.”

In response, Vicki Jackson, the lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court to argue that the court lacks standing to hear the case, responded that it’s “a hard question” given that the constitutional questions turn on what relief the injured parties are seeking.
(more)

It's an odd comment for Herr Roberts to make since, by the constitution, a law can only be judged and declared unconstitutiional by the Supreme Court. The President can have an opinion on whether a law is constitutional but it takes the Supreme Court to determine it to be unconstitutional - that's their job.

[pugetres]

1. I think it a hint to article 3 of the constitution?

There needs to be a legal controversy for DOMA arguments to be heard and reviewed by the SCOTUS. So one side wants to point out that since the Administration and the lower courts are in agreement (that it isn't constitutional), the SCOTUS shouldn't be involved.

The other side has pointed out that though the POTUS believes that DOMA is unconstitutional, the attorney general IS enforcing it.

The controversy is needed.

[PoliticAverse]

2. "by the constitution, a law can only be judged and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court"

The Constitution doesn't specifically give the court that power, they asserted it in Marbury v. Madison.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison ).

Roberts (and Scalia's) comments wasn't that odd. Presidents have often indicated they wouldn't enforce a law they
believed to be unconstitutional via signing statements. If a President doesn't believe a law is constitutional he should
not enforce it else he violate his oath of office. Obama indicated he and Holder thought the law was unconstitutional
but directed the justice department to enforce it anyway.

For some background on the Presidency and Unconstitutional laws see this 1994 justice department memorandum
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

[RobertEarl]

3. A Trap?

If the court decided that Obama was NOT doing what the law states and he came out and said so, they'd be setting up the impeachment tree.

Obama is a mere opinion to the court. However, if this court/cons can make a case Obama is violating the law... boom.

They know what is and isn't legal. Bush pushed that envelope and so they are familiar with a law-breaking president. But their buddy Bush is gone now and Obama is no friend of most this court.

[Bill USA]

4. I still say Roberts is a schmuck.....and you can quote me.

[libodem]

5. Alrighty then

Roberts is a schmuck. Ahhh, that felt good.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Isn't Roberts the one who borked Obama's Oath?

[bemildred]

7. Roberts is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It is a stupid question, in the sense that it is obvious why the President governs according to federal law.