I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Selective Law Enforcement

I clipped the following from a CBS article.

“In a decision described as "shocking" and "breathtaking," the Obama Administration announced this afternoon that the Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman”

How does the group feel? Does the DOJ have the power to pick and choose which laws they will enforce? And if you feel they do, should they?


  1. Well, Jackson decided not to enforce the Worcester decision, which, while narrow in scope, would have been considered a pro-indian precedent that would have at least slowed the removal of the Chreokee.

  2. Does this not upset the "checks and balances?" I mean Legislature passes a law, Judicial Department has made no decision declaring a law unconstitutional, the Executive Branch just decides they don't like a law, so they will "functionally veto" the law, since they can't veto or repeal it for real.

    And then when the next administration takes over
    and decides that they do like the law, what becomes of all the people who took advantage of the previous government's "blind eye?"

    Smells like trouble to me.