Bob Unruh begins an Aug. 31 WorldNetDaily article on the right-wing Judicial Watch filing yet another nuisance lawsuit against the Obama administration over the Defense of Marriage Act by claiming that the administration is "picking and choosing which of the nation's laws it wants to enforce." Unruh further suggested that DOMA should be enforce because it was "congressionally approved and presidentially signed."
At no point does Unruh explain that the reason the administration has decided to decline to defend DOMA in court is because it considers the law to be unconstitutional. Unruh also does not explain that there is well-established precedent for presidents to refuse to defend statutes they view as unconstitutional -- indeed, presidents from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush have done it. Nor did Unruh offer any evidence that Judicial Watch is aware of this precedent.
Unruh misled further by referencing "the Obama administration's recent decision to stop the deportation of large numbers of illegal aliens, in apparent violation of the nation's own immigration laws." That's a false description of the administration's action; in fact, the administration is exercising prosecutorial discretion in prioritizing the deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed criminal offense over those who have not. Again, prosecutorial discretion is well established in U.S. law, recognized even by conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist.
As is de rigueur for Unruh, he allows only one side of the story -- that of Judicial Watch -- to explain its case and mislead about what the other side thinks. He makes no effort to contact any Obama administration official for a response to Judicial Watch.