The return of Martha Coakley.

"Coakley is still scarred from her 2010 Senate defeat, and many Democrats shudder at the thought of her running again."

"Should President Obama have gone to Wisconsin?"

Asks WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

The majority of Democratic strategists we spoke to over the weekend, however, insisted that the combination of Obama’s personality (and that of his political team) as well as the unique dynamics in the Badger State lessened not only the likelihood of a presidential visit but also its potential efficacy.

“If a recall race becomes purely partisan, there is a strong backlash from independents,” said Steve Murphy, a leading Democratic media consultant. “Obama was smart to stay away, for both himself and Barrett.”

That's too vague. What's wrong with "Obama's personality" (and the "personality" of his "team") that  would have been bad for Barrett?

Another Democratic operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy said that polling suggests “Barrett’s problem is is white men, lots of them union members, and Obama doesn’t cut much ice there.”

Thanks, anonymous Democrat. Thanks for the insight. Obama shied away from Wisconsin because of the white men. But I thought it was all about turnout. His lack of ice-cutting with white men wouldn't have prevented him from stimulating the women and minorities.

“Everyone knows how risk averse Obama is,” said a senior party strategist. “At least he’s consistent.”... 

In the end, Obama, like all of us, is shaped by his own experiences. And roughly two years ago, Obama gave in to pleas for him to make a last-minute campaign stop for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), who was struggling to hold the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Obama’s trip changed nothing. Coakley lost to now-Sen. Scott Brown (R), and the president had to endure a series of stories about whether he had lost his mojo.

Seen through that lens, Wisconsin looks like a no-win situation for Obama. As one Democratic consultant closely following the race put it: “From his point of view, (there’s) not much to gain and something to lose.”

So, basically, don't help Democrats who need help. Stop by for some win when they are already winning. But I'm not going to criticize Obama for not associating himself with the recall calamity. It's enough to hide the anger that surely must be there about the way the Wisconsin recall is hogging the political spotlight, draining donation money that might have gone elsewhere, and providing a ripe opportunity for advertising the success of conservative policy.

This week, Paul Clement argues that a federal statute is constitutional.

After last week's superb performance attacking the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court, former Solicitor General Paul Clement was in federal court — the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals — yesterday, defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

There are 2 cases on appeal:

In the case brought by Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, [Feder District] Judge Tauro found in 2010 that DOMA compels Massachusetts to discriminate against gay couples who are legally married under state law in order for the commonwealth to receive federal money for certain programs.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed in 2010 that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

On the equal protection ground, Clement argued that Congress's legitimate interest was to have "a uniform definition" of marriage rather than to use state law, which varied from state to state (even though marriage laws have always varies from state to state, and Congress otherwise relies on state law to determine who counts as married for federal purposes).

Maura Healey, the assistant attorney general who argued on behalf of Ms. Coakley, told the panel that DOMA requires Massachusetts “to live with two distinct and unequal forms of marriage.” She added, “This is a burden that Congress has imposed on Massachusetts simply because it doesn’t like the fact that gay people are getting married.”

Stuart F. Delery, the Justice Department’s acting assistant attorney general for the civil division, also argued before the panel, saying that the court should hold DOMA to heightened scrutiny because it targets “a group with a long and deep history of discrimination.”

Here's the recorded argument, which I have not yet listened to.

Isn't it wonderful that we have this opportunity to examine what we've been saying for the past week about the role of the judiciary and deference to democratic decisionmaking? I assume many people who want the ACA upheld want DOMA stricken down, and many who want to keep DOMA want ACA crushed. So have at it. And please be consistent.

As a law professor, it's easy for me to argue any of the 4 possibilities, so I'll let you start the conversation. First, a survey:

DOMA and the ACA...
	Both are constitutional.
	Both are unconstitutional.
	DOMA is constitutional but the ACA is not.
	The ACA is constitutional but DOMA is not.
	I haven't done the legal analysis to know.
	The answer is whatever the highest court says in the end.
pollcode.com free polls

Explain your answers in the comments.