Alex Blaze

Newt Gingrich Wants Obama Impeached for DOMA Position

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 28, 2011 10:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Media, Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, DOMA, Eric Holder, Glenn Beck, LGBT, marriage, Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is calling for the impeachment of Obama over the Holder Letter on DOMA.

The only video that I could find on this was Lawrence O'Donnell, who didn't seem to get that the point of Gingrich calling for impeachment is to build up a general sense of illegality and illegitimacy around Obama and not really to criticize Obama on the issue of marriage itself. That's the new reality for the Republican-controlled House - look for any reason to impeach and see what sticks until something finally does. It's what they did to Clinton.

It's a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, since the latter took impeachment off the table when they took the House and Bush was president even though Bush committed actual impeachable offenses. I suppose they thought they'd get credit for being mature and bipartisan, but we saw how that one turned out.

O'Donnell fudged the facts in a minor way. Holder didn't say that they wouldn't defend the constitutionality of DOMA in "appeals courts"; he said that, after the Second Circuit Court required them to take a position on the level of scrutiny required for sexual orientation discrimination they decided that DOMA doesn't satisfy a "more heightened level of scrutiny." Since the DOJ was defending DOMA in appeals courts and attorneys in those cases are waiting to see if the DOJ stops what it was doing, and since there's no indication that the DOJ will keep on defending DOMA at the trial level, O'Donnell's statement is wrong. Not all that sinister, but since he's making fun of Gingrich and Beck for messing up their interpretation of the Holder Letter....

Also forgotten was that Bush was famous for going to the Justice Department to get lower level staffers to write him memos saying that his clearly illegal activity was perfectly legal, and Gingrich didn't complain about it at the time. More importantly, the DOJ doesn't defend every single law without exception - the rare exceptions are statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional, a category that now includes DOMA. It would have been nice to have seen O'Donnell explain this to people instead of just relaying Gingrich's argument without any real rebuttal, but I'm sure he found making fun of Gingrich and Beck for being hypocrites a lot more fun.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Alex, before you get the Clinton Pity Party started, let's get one thing straight (pardon the pun): Pres. Clinton handed the far-right a rallying cry, when he engaged in improper activities in the Oval Office with an intern.

Yeah, he was one of our greatest POLICY presidents ever. But the Democratic Party I love, has been a staunch supporter of workplace equity. You don't champion workplace equity by using an intern (thus protected by federal labor laws) as a humidor in the Oval Office.

Pres. Obama hasn't done anything so improper--he merely opposed the far-right anti-middle-class agenda. Horrors!

Newt Gingrich waxing eloquent or moralistic on ANYthing is hilarious to me. He's selling books, no more. Not even the GOP will nominate such a nutcase. It would single-handedly forfeit any perceived moral high ground on their definition of "family values." He's a pig.

But I'll hand it to him: he's a persistent oinker. Or maybe he has an expensive lifestyle, and needs to sell books, make speeches & whore around the neocon lecture circuit.

Don't worry, I have no pity for Clinton. Dude's rich, has been president, and has anything he wants. If he doesn't have spiritual fulfillment, pity won't help him get it.

But, no, he didn't hand the right anything. They had already tried to impeach him at least a dozen times before Lewinsky and they were just looking for something and that was it. Americans didn't care, generally, but our journalistic class apparently did.

"Pres. Obama hasn't done anything so improper..." Agreed. And, for the first few times Republicans called for Clinton's impeachment, he hadn't done anything "so improper" as getting a blow job.

Anyway, I think it's easy to blame Clinton for his own impeachment, but if he were really at fault then Obama would never be attacked the same way by the right because he's been a paramount of public monogamy.

I also don't think he's anywhere near America's greatest policy presidents, but I'm not opening that one here.

I'm pretty sure no impeachment articles were introduced,and very little impeach discussion was held, over Travelgate, Vince Foster, et al, or the litany of other anti-Clinton commentary run amuk at the time.

Nope. They impeached him for perjury. Over the Lewinsky, uh...mess. And he succumbed to his weak inner self on that one, on the world stage. It was pitiful.

He did perjure himself. No question. It was a dumb thing to have to answer, and I'd have said: none of your damned business.

But by almost any reasonable standard, Alex, he handed it to them.

Yeah, we can have the policy debate another time. Thanks. He was certainly heads-and-above his successor. I know that's a low bar.

Agreed on the low bar. Yes he did perjure himself, but it was about nothing, and I think we agree there. Republicans didn't actually impeach on any of the other stuff because they couldn't have the momentum yet, not because there was anything different. I just think I'm more forgiving than you are. :)

They won't impeach Obama over this. But they're looking for something, and at some point something's going to fit the bill.

Kathy Padilla | February 28, 2011 10:41 AM

EH - Who's going to listen to Mr. Serial Polygamy with his three wives & counting?

Nice catch.
One difference: Gingrich can now play the superior morality of the Catholic card. We'll see if it helps or hinders.
I'm betting he won't last till fall.

Kathy Padilla | February 28, 2011 2:15 PM

"One difference: Gingrich can now play the superior morality of the Catholic card."

Hmm... Back when I was in catechism class; being twice divorced & currently living in sin as you're still married to your ex; didn't offer one much of a purchase on moral superiority.


Is his Catholicism of the buffet line variety?

Oh, I'm sure he's been effectively annulled, reconciled, etc.
All workable if you have the connections.

This guy might be running for president? More like running his mouth. This might get the Tea Partiers on his side, but no one else.

I love the deceptive spin! First of all, who is Newt to say someone should be impeached! LOL Secondly, Obama should have been impeached for a few different things, a long time ago!

Newt Gingrich really is an expert on impeaching people for silly reasons!

Why is anyone worried about Obama getting impeached? My recollection of the US Constitution is that impeachment needs to be initiated by the Senate, and the GOP doesn't have a majority in the Senate ... or am I missing something?

Secondly ... is there a statute of limitations regarding impeachment? If not, then the Democratic-controlled Senate can still threaten to impeach GWB if the GOP mouths gets too covered in rabies foam.

It might not be very forward-visioned ... but the GOP needs to learn that what goes around, can come around.

From Wikipedia:

... Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments.

Well ... never mind ...

But my first point is ultimately the same, that without a majority in both houses, and lacking a very serious reason for impeachment, such impeachment attempts tend to do nothing but stir the pot ...

That's the new reality for the Republican-controlled House - look for any reason to impeach and see what sticks until something finally does. It's what they did to Clinton.

That was my 1st thought too.

John Gagon | March 1, 2011 10:12 AM

Wow, what a slap to his queer family.

Gingrich should shut his piehole. He's been married 3 times. Hung around with whores and flaps his mouth about impeachment because he doesn't like Democrats. He's a whoremongering infidel peanut dick.
Surprised someone hasn't shot the prick years ago.