Much more nuanced and politically savvy filing this time.  They're still defending the constitutionality of DOMA, but they explicitly say "this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."  And they spell out their procedural reasons for defending the constitutionality of the statute instead of just leaving everyone to speculate.

They encourage the court to decide the case on the narrow grounds of standing rather than getting into the constitutional issues, something they should have focused on the first time around.

And they spell out the Administration's disagreement with the anti-gay marriage groups who have intervened in this case to also defend DOMA:

Unlike the intervenors here, the government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Doc. 42 at 8-9). Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion - which, of course, is the prevailing law - because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." For these reasons, the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality.

and they make a pretty cute couple.  so much so I almost (but not quite) wish they were not both fixed.

Brad Pitt has joined the cast of 'Sherlock Holmes' as the detectives greatest nemesis, Professor Moriarty. According to a newspaper Warner Bros. were not happy that the good professor was left out of the film so they gave director Guy Ritchie an extra 10 days to film the scenes with Brad Pitt.

    "It's a huge coup to have Brad joining the cast. He has worked for Guy before and said if he could, he would do anything to help out" a source told the mirror.

    "It was an oversight in the film not to make a bigger deal about Moriarty. He is mentioned as Holmes' arch enemy, but the bosses wanted Guy to make more of him."

    "Jude Law [who plays Dr Watson] and Robert Downey Jr [Holmes] have already shot their scenes. But now that 10 extra days have been added to shoot the new ones, they may be called back for a day or two."

CNN:

"What about this?," Carville said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, "Suppose they pass a House bill that can get 56 Senate Democrats." Then, Carville suggested, instead of using reconciliation, a special budgetary maneuver in Senate procedure that frustrate GOP attempts to mount a filibuster, Democrats should call for a vote. "And make [Republicans] filibuster it. But the old kinda way is that they filibuster it and make'em go three weeks and all night and [Democrats] will be there the whole time.

"Then, you say, `They're the people that stopped it. We had a majority of Democrats. We had a good bill. They stopped it.'"

  If the early jurists had decided they preferred civil law or some other system would the constitution have stood in the way of implementation? (and who would have made  that ruling? The President? Congress?  Would judicial review be incompatible with a civil law or some other court system?

  I know some (not sure how many) of the state constitutions expressly recognize the common law system but the federal constitution does not seem to forbid deviation or substitution.

   As for stare decisis, it's a guiding principle and important as such but it's not a rule or a mandate and it's  not the only guiding principle and sometimes should not be the most important one.

In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans -- even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.