Former Supreme Court Justice Demolishes Suthers' DOMA Meddling

8 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

In the editorial pages of today’s Denver newspaper, you’ll find a must-read takedown of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers by former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky, over his recent amicus brief in support of the federal government’s case regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, Suthers joined this case in Massachusetts initially claiming that he was defending “a Colorado constitutional provision.”

We were contacted the morning this story published by a source knowledgeable of the case who explained that this claim by Suthers is false–as we said then, there are several sections of DOMA in question, and the lawsuit in Massachusetts pertains to federal benefits for same-sex couples that are already recognized by the state in question–not the section of DOMA that pertains to the authority of states to accept or reject marriages from other states.

The next day, the AG’s office admitted that the Massachusetts case, however decided, “technically wouldn’t invalidate our law.” And today, Dubofsky rips apart the original claim that Suthers’ actions would defend Colorado law, then explains that if his second explanation is true, and he joined the brief in support of “states rights,” then he actually joined the wrong side of the case.

To be honest, we’re aware that this issue isn’t going to rank at the top of every Colorado voter’s priority list, even though the demographics of the electorate are making it less of a controversy with each passing day. Faced with a huge budget crisis and so many other challenges, there’s just a lot of headline-grabbing issues out there competing for importance.

But Suthers sure seems to think gay marriage, and opposing it wherever he can, is awfully important–even to the point of making questionable claims about why he is involved at all.

8 thoughts on “Former Supreme Court Justice Demolishes Suthers’ DOMA Meddling”

ArapaGOP says:

February 10, 2011 at 9:32 pm

THIS IS THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S CASE.

Don’t you think that detail should be included somewhere in your polemic?

Log in to Reply
1. Craig says:
  
  February 10, 2011 at 9:43 pm
  
  Let’s ignore the man behind the curtain. He’s not important anyway. Speak to the point. Oh, and see my snark below. I think it hits the Justice’s points more succintly.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Craig says:
    
    February 10, 2011 at 9:47 pm
    
    Are you for state’s rights or not? If you are, then Massachusetts has the right to allow anyone it wants to to marry and you should support that. You know, you should also read the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. I know you guys don’t like to read the whole Constitution and you like to ignore certain founding fathers, but you know, really. Oh, that full faith and credit clause was probably one of the ones that the Republicans left out in their reading of the Constitution because they don’t like it.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. BlueCat says:
  
  February 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm
  
  The reasoning in the piece is unassailable.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Craig says:
    
    February 10, 2011 at 11:50 pm
    
    from Justice Dubofsky.
    
    Log in to Reply
Craig says:

February 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm

You expect these people to be consistent. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Please, there is another, more important reason for them to be inconsistent. Really. I know that you don’t understand it being the fine jurist that you were and the great lawyer that you are, but really, the anti-gay consistency of the Republicans is much more important than consistency on state’s rights, and particularly about such an important issue as, oh my I not sure I can say it in polite company, GAY MARRIAGE (oh, I hope lightening won’t strike). Did you learn no lessons from Terry Schaivo. That was the time when the Republicans in Congress and the President of the United States tried to override state law in one of the most sacred of states-retained-rights areas, the right to die or not die. You see, they had a more important principal, you know, that sanctity of life stuff where they make the baby be born and then cut off any funding for anything thereafter for the welfare queens or make you live until God takes you but cut your Medicare or Medicaid at the same time so you will have to suffer. Please, we can’t be silly, states rights is only for cutting budgets and stopping social security and Medicaid and Medicare and stuff like that which will reduce the size of the Federal Government. But when it comes to important things like fertilized eggs and dying cancer victims and (again I hate to bring this up in polite society but) medical marijuana well, then the Federal Government must step in because the states simply can’t be trusted. Do you understand now?

Log in to Reply
Gilpin Guy says:

February 10, 2011 at 11:18 pm

to show what an ideological chameleon he is. He’s for states rights if it opposes forcing people to pay for health insurance coverage but he if for recognizing national statute to force people to not love each other. What?

Log in to Reply
OneEyedOwl says:

February 11, 2011 at 12:40 am

and start doing his job. Yes, this is a rant, but it’s short, so bear with me.

As I recall, then-Attorney General Ken Salazar was pretty active in going after violators of the no-call list. After Suthers moved into the office, unsolicited commercial calls increased (to my phone number, anyway). The mice finally determined that the cat had disappeared, and now the unwanted phone solicitors call a couple of times a week.

Yes, I tell them to take me off of their calling list and that I’m on the no-call list, and when I say that, the calls stop. But the point is that they’re not supposed to be calling me in the first place (I know the loopholes, and these callers don’t fit in any of them). I thought the attorney general was supposed to be enforcing the no-call rule. Suthers, do your damned job.

Log in to Reply