2005: Justice Department Refuses to Defend Congress in Legal Battle Over Law

[VMI Dem]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/justice-department-refuses-defend-congress-legal-battle-over-law-censoring-marijuana

[LonePirate]

1. And some wonder why the LGBT community is upset with Obama for appealing the DADT ruling

[VMI Dem]

2. This meme that every decision must be appealed is BS.

[LynneSin]

3. Remember that was during the Bush administration - they didn't really follow any rules

trust me, if it was something he didn't like he would have went by the law.

[JonLP24]

5. Yes but he didn't break any rules in this case

The Justice Department is required to defend law when it is initially challenged. There is a good reason for that because a Republican administration could choose not to defend a FMLA case in court or something we like. However appealing is optional. There is no requirement to appeal everytime the feds lose a case.

[VMI Dem]

6. So you think Bush wouldn't like censoring ads on the failure of marijuana laws?

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

4. That's because there was no plausible argumment that could be used to defend the statute under

current precedent.