Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
prayer circles

‘We Wish That It Were Another Way’ To Kill DADT, Says Valerie Jarrett (Without Any Of Hint Irony)

Lifestyle expert Valerie Jarrett is not playing any games on this Don’t Ask Don’t Tell business. Speaking this morning on CNN, she talks about how the U.S. is a “nation of laws” and how DoJ “is doing what it is required to do, and that is defend the laws of the land.” Still missing from the White House adviser’s lips: whether the administration believes the law to be unconstitutional.

EARLIER:
Nobody Agrees On Whether Obama Must Defend DADT. Which Makes Arguing Back And Forth So Much Fun!

  • 11 Comments
    • Mark
      Mark

      Fuck you Jarrett, fuck you Obama.

      Lying, bigotted hypocrites.

      These morons keep parroting that they want DADT to be repealed but have not offered timelines or a strategy on how they will do it.

      With ‘friends’ like the Democrats, who needs enemies.

      Oct 21, 2010 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Well don’t worry Jarrett, because after all you think being gay is a “Choice.”

      Once again, and sorry for the repeat, but…

      The White House claims that they HAVE to have the DOJ defend all federal laws.

      A short list…
      Bush refused to defend ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta,
      Clinton refused to defend Dickerson v. United States.,
      George HW Bush refused to defend Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission.,
      Ronald Reagan refused to defend INS v./ Chadha – “Chadha.,

      Additionally, all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn’t like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

      The presidents job is to uphold and defend the constitution, if he thinks that a law is unconstitutional then he is duty bound to not defend it.

      Lastly, remember, Obama supposedly wants this to go through Congress, and yet first the White House ordered rep Alcey Hastings to pull his bill repealeing DADT out, then said no DADT would be voted on this year, and then later when Pelosi told him a vote was coming whether he wanted it or not, the White House inserted time hurdles, stripped language that would have outlawed discrimination and added in a provision that could have left the policy in place even if Congress voted it down.

      So if he wants Congress to vote on this, why does he keep inserting blocks and pitfalls?

      Oct 21, 2010 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Defending DADT is a lifestyle choice.

      Oct 21, 2010 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      The justice department is required to defend the laws of the land…Which is exactly why the DOJ so swiftly appealed that ruling that allows religious groups to proselytize in state parks.

      …Wait, they didn’t appeal? They just let that ruling stand? Oh I see.

      Well in that case I guess she’s just full of shit.

      Oct 21, 2010 at 5:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Re No. 4 · Devon “The justice department is required to defend the laws of the land…Which is exactly why the DOJ so swiftly appealed that ruling that allows religious groups to proselytize in state parks.…Wait, they didn’t appeal? They just let that ruling stand? Oh I see. Well in that case I guess she’s just full of shit.”

      She oversimplified. They are not required to defend a law that is obviously unconstitutional. It’s not clear that DADT is unconstitutional, as opposed to merely being brain dead. Basically, if you know for sure you are going to lose, you don’t have to waste resources trying anyway.

      BTW, in Judge Phillips’ decision, she pointed out that the DoJ did not call a single witness and only (perfunctorily) introduced the legislative history of DADT as evidence. In other words, they said, “Here’s what they thought at the time. You decide if they knew what they were talking about and if what they did is constitutional”. So, the DoJ seems to be doing the minimum that they believe is required.

      Oct 22, 2010 at 12:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rainfish
      Rainfish

      FROM JOE.MY.GOD BLOGSPOT

      DOJ Declines To Appeal Ruling Allowing Christianists To Proselytize In Parks

      The Department of Justice has elected to let stand a court ruling which allows Christianists and other religious groups to demonstrate, preach, and proselytize in federal parks. The original case was brought by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund over a preacher who was made to stop handing out pamphlets at Mount Rushmore.

      “It was a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit Christian legal defense group. “He was completely stymied from sharing his Christian views with anybody else.” The case “establishes that national parks are no different than any other public park,” Kellum said. “There’s no distinction now between Mount Rushmore and the city park down the street.” Groups of 25 or fewer people may now demonstrate or distribute or sell printed material in designated areas of national parks and historic sites without a permit, according to interim regulations to be published soon in the Federal Register.

      Even though this decision by the DOJ is unrelated to DADT, Servicemembers United feels it is emblematic of the Obama administration’s hypocrisy. Via press release:

      “In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court’s decision on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court’s ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. “Servicemembers United renews its call for the administration to withdraw its appeal of both the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ruling and the injunction pursuant to that ruling.”

      READ MORE ABOUT IT AT THE LINK BELOW:

      http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj-declines-to-appeal-ruling-allowing.html

      Oct 22, 2010 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @B wrote, “They are not required to defend a law that is obviously unconstitutional.”

      A federal judge found the law’s unconstitutionality obvious.

      So the fact they keep defending the damn law means there must be some other reason why they will not let it die.

      But It’s GOTta Rile Ya.

      Oct 22, 2010 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daez
      Daez

      @Mark: The same people that want Obama to step down on appealing decisions that they believe should not be appealed bitched and whined and moaned when GW didn’t appeal laws that they believed should be appealed and yet Obama is the hypocrite. IRONY!

      Eventually, if this country continues to favor war over peace talks they will need gay troops enough to get rid of DADT. In the mean time, ask yourself why you feel it so necessary to fight for the right to fight for a country that doesn’t really consider you human.

      Oct 22, 2010 at 9:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      This woman is either very stupid or thinks the rest of us are.

      Oct 22, 2010 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • naswiflyer
      naswiflyer

      During the presidential campaign, does anyone recall how Obama stated how he intended to end DADT? I don’t recall him saying that he wanted Congress to repeal DADT?

      Oct 22, 2010 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Why not us?
      Why not us?

      Obama has been quite willing to spend the Democrats’ political capital on:

      1. Defending illegal aliens. The Supreme Court will soon hear the administration’s arguments against states being allowed to require employers to verify that new workers are, in fact, eligible to work in the US

      2. Defending the Ground Zero Mosque/Community Center

      3. Vehemently objecting to the an obscure Florida pastor who had planned to exercise his First Amendment right to burn the Koran.

      Why was Obama willing to sacrifice political capital on these issues, but not on defending us? Ending DADT has far more support among the American people than any of these.

      Read more: http://www.queerty.com/valerie-jarrett-expert-at-rehearsing-talking-points-about-obamas-dadt-helplessness-20101022/comment-page-1/#comment-360596#ixzz13APLtn6N

      Oct 23, 2010 at 4:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.