Adam Serwer makes two excellent points with respect to Orin Kerr's assertion that the Obama administration's refusal to defend DOMA is a "power grab." First of all, this executive power has already been "grabbed" multiple times by administrations of both parties. There's nothing new here; Obama's actions are entirely consistent with the actions of his predecessors. And, second, Serwer is also correct that to believe that a future Republican president would defend the constitutionality of the ACA because Obama defended DOMA is naive in the extreme. If President Palin doesn't want to defend the constitutionality of a law, she won't, regardless of what Obama does. "Precedents" established by presidents don't bind future administrations.
In addition to this, it's hard to see what, exactly, is dangerous about this alleged "power grab." Obama is not (unlike George W. Bush) claiming the authority to ignore congressional statutes. The federal courts will still be able to adjudicate the constitutionality of DOMA and Obama has not suggested that they would refuse to accept a contrary judgment. The Obama administration's largely symbolic attempt to influence the courts does not in any way threaten the balance of powers or the rule of law. And it's certainly not unprecedented.
