Nancy Pelosi is a mean girl
You can take the girl out of grade school, but you can't take the grade school out of the girl
Nancy Pelosi is a mean girl
Nancy Pelosi is in a spiteful mood these days.
As you will recall, the Department of Justice recently decided not to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” because the Law Review Editor in Chief and his Attorney General seem to think it’s unconstitutional. Which, of course, is their right. They can kvetch all they want about it at cocktail parties, and send tweets back and forth between the White House and Justice.
But as I’ve said in the past, they don’t have the right to simply hoist the white flag and refuse to defend a law that, until now, has passed constitutional muster. Yes, a few lower courts have ruled that it violates equal protection. But the Supremes have not made a pronouncement on the issue, and until they do, some flaky judge in the 9th Circuit does not get to make national policy.
Nonetheless, the Department of Justice has refused to fulfill its legal obligation and defend a duly-executed, procedurally sound piece of legislation.
So Congress has decided to pick up the slack, and is defending the law on its own.
To do this, it’s forced to expend money which it would not have needed to waste in lawyer’s fees had its ‘in house’ team (namely, the prosecutorial arm of the US government, namely, the DOJ and the Solicitor General) done their job and not cowered in front of the powerful LGBT lobby.
Because it can’t depend on its own lawyers, Congress has had to hire the services of the appellate experts at King and Spaulding and, in particular, of Paul Clement. Clement is a former Solicitor General, and he doesn’t come cheap. According to a recently-released report, the House has agreed to pay King and Spaulding an hourly rate of $520.00 to defend DOMA against the many challenges that have been cropping up across the country.
That means the firm is slated to gross at least a half million dollars before the contract expires, unless it’s extended because of ongoing litigation.
That’s a lot of money, but not excessive as these things go. Ask any attorney at one of Philadelphia’s white shoe law firms, and they’ll tell you that $500,000.00 over an estimated year and a half (the contract is scheduled to expire in January of 2013) is not unheard of.
Still, it’s a lot of money, and Congress shouldn’t have been forced to spend it when they had attorneys on retainer.
But the worst part about all of this is, as I was saying, Pelosi. Going behind Speaker Boehner’s back and complaining about wasting taxpayer money, the woman who had her own private jet shuttling her from nail salons in D.C. to dress shops in San Francisco (with a few constituent meetings in between) leaked information about the contract to the public. And while she’s trying to make it seem as if this was simply a move to promote transparency in government, anyone who’s been watching the former Speaker for the past few years knows that she really did it to sink those well-manicured nails into the man who stole her job.
Of course, that’s not the way she wants it to play in the arena of public opinion. Here is the press release from Pelosi’s office concerning the decision to release the information:
“The hypocrisy of this legal boondoggle is mind-blowing. Speaker Boehner is spending half a million dollars of taxpayer money to defend discrimination. If Republicans were really interested in cutting spending, this should be at the top of the list.”
Hypocrisy is actually a very good word to use. And you can throw in ‘chutzpah’ too. Or, as Nancy and I remember from our Italian classes, ‘corraggio’ which essentially translates into ‘balls.’ Because as Boehner’s office noted, “this whole thing would be unnecessary if the White House and the Justice Department would do their job and defend a law that was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States – a Democratic President, at that.”
Exactly. And everyone, including Pelosi, knows it.
While it’s regrettable that Congress was forced to open the purse a little wider than anticipated, it could have been avoided if the Justice Department had done its job and not continued to play politics.
Some people seem to think that when Justice dropped the ball, the government should have just rolled over and let DOMA die a quick death. But that’s not the way we do business in this constitutional democracy. There’s a process to be followed, even if Barack Obama and Eric Holder don’t like it.
So Boehner is right. And if you ask me, Nancy Pelosi is just some aging mean girl.
Eloquently said, Christine. Now I would like to read the Ann Coulter version.— PlumberJoe
The tone of this piece is ironic. You call Pelosi a "mean girl" and yet it is this piece, not anything said by Pelosi, that is plainly mean.
Worse still, it is full of misinformation. The 1st Circuit, not the 9th, is the court that ruled against DOMA at the district level. Also, the House of Representatives has its own lawyers on its payroll and didn't need to hire outside, private, politically connected council at a cost of at least half a million dollars. That extra spending is indeed a boondoggle and the choice to hire a former Solicitor General should be questioned. Furthermore, it is not the Executive Branch's job to defend every law on the books; the President is sworn to defend the Constitution. When a law is constitutional, this means defending that law, but asking the DOJ to defend a law that it believes is unconstitutional is asking it to abandon its primary mission. Defending the Constitution means opposing laws that violate it, not blindly supporting every piece of legislation enacted by earlier administrations.
Finally, Pelosi might have "gone behind Boehner's back," but it was her actions to reveal the contract, rather than Boehner's efforts to hide it, that were the correct and ethical course. All Americans should have the right to see all contracts paid for with taxpayer dollars. That Boehner refused to disclose the contract should make us wonder what it contains, especially since it was granted to a former Republican appointee without an open bidding process. A government by the people must be open and accountable to the people, so we need to have access to this contract and all others like it.— Icee- Icee-
Finally, Pelosi might have "gone behind Boehner's back," but it was her actions to reveal the contract, rather than Boehner's efforts to hide it, that were the correct and ethical course. ----- Where was all this ethics under her leadership in 20009 and 2010 when it came to passing a budget-which she did not, and taking action against Rangel, Maxine Waters, and other stellar members of the ruling party? Oh that's right, let's push it off until after the election so that it became the other party's problem.
— jcc1960 - In this case, which is all that is addressed by this blog post, it was Pelosi, not Boehner, that did the right thing for the American people.
I never addressed anything Pelosi did at other times in her career. I'm sure any long-serving politician has made bad decisions in his or her career, but revealing this contract was a good decision. Any American, and especially those who believe in smaller government with less spending, should recognize the importance of giving people information like this about how the government is spending our money.— Icee - and we need DOMA on the books because??— phillycc74
- Icee, are you sure that you do see? I really do not want to defend, but I will.
First, if Pelosi was a mensch, believed in honesty and transparency, she would have called a press conference and explained her views. Anything less is sneaky.
Second, if you take each of your other claims and reread the blog you will see that you have misinterpreted and misrepresented each of your claims.
If you do that and still have trouble understanding which and why, itemize them and I will explain.
So, in summation, the lack of a press conference to stand before the public and speak her mind is sneaky. Plain and simple as that. Capice?— PlumberJoe - phillycc74, old Noah understood. He only boarded for each kind, one male and one female. DOMA proudly states that marriage is for a man and a woman. That keeps marriage in the right perspective. Even Bill Clinton who understood little about the sanctity of marriage, understood that.— PlumberJoe
- And with the above, I am calling a press conference- to announce my retirement. See you all in the funny papers.— PlumberJoe
- Gotcha, PJ. Undoing DOMA and recognizing equality for gay couples would result in the end of procreation and human civilization would cease to exist. Thanks for your insight.— phillycc74
- philly, leave me be. Let me enjoy retirement. But just for you. First, read your constitution. If you do not believe in the rule of law, I cannot help you.
Marriage is left to the states, not to the central government. So if you want to get married to another of the same sex, get your state to say that is OK with them and they will license you to do so.
A marriage is a legal contract. And it is up to the state to define the rules of engagement, so to speak. That is how it works. Move to a state where such marriage is legal and be happy.
Or, alternatively, go for a civil ceremony. If you love your partner, what else matters?— PlumberJoe - What else matters, PJ? The list is far too long for this little box, so here's a link to the list from the General Accounting Office. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf Enjoy reading it during your retirement.— phillycc74
Testing.— retour- philly, since I started I'll go a step or two further. I read your prescribed list. Let's stipulate that those items represent a fair accounting of U.S. law vs. access on a marital basis.
Why should they also not be applicable to two family members, such as siblings. And you could make an equally good case for two life time friends. And it does not stop there. So why stop any where. Actually why have laws at all, because somewhere in those laws there will be inequities. Sorry, marriage between a man and a woman is sacred stuff. And friendship is friendship, but it is not marriage. Sex (boinking) doesn't change that.
BTW, Nancy Pelosi is a mean girl. How would you like to be married to her?— PlumberJoe - "Sorry, marriage between a man and a woman is sacred stuff." Given what I've seen of the marriages between men and women in this country of late, I'm calling B.S. on that one. So my partner and I are just "two buddies (or rather friends with benefits)" as far as you're concerned? Nice try, although I give you credit for staying one rung classier than our former senator by not making a case for man and beast.
As for being married to Pelosi, there are far worse, my friend.
— phillycc74 - Well done, PJ, you answered Icee quite clearly, and accurately, so I'll only need to add a few comments (and don't worry phillycc74, I won't ignore you either) Icee says that the House of Representatives has its own 'attorneys on payroll.' Interestingly, the 'attorneys on payroll' that matter to me are the ones my tax dollars are paying to actually defend the Constitution. They would be the ones in Justice (under Holder, that name seems like a quaint vestige of the olden days). They were obligated to defend the constitution, and its laws, and this law (whether you like it or not phillycc74) is constitutional until the Supreme Court says it's not. How dare anyone just decide not to defend the law because it violates the LGBT interpretation of equal protection? And as for the whole idea of Pelosi doing the right thing, that woman was the least transparent Italian since Cesare Borgia. (And as you all know, I'm Italian) Her derry-doing and back-door dealing with respect to the Health Care law is a disgrace, and any one who tries to defend her actions here as transparency are blinded by partisan loyalty. One last time: DOMA is the law, and is constitutional, until a majority of the high court (not Obama, not Holder, not Icee, not phillycc74, not anyone else who hasn't been given the advise and consent of the senate to sit on that court) says so. Icee was right about one thing, though. It was the 1st circuit, as I noted in a previous blog posting. Mea culpa, but I can be excused from forgetting that the 9th circuit isn't the only one that seeks to move us inexorably toward its version of liberal nirvana.— Christine
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
