It’s tentative, and it doesn’t mean gay soldiers should be coming out anytime soon, but Judge Virginia Phillips said today she’s not inclined to grant the Justice Department’s request for a stay in her issuing an immediate injunction to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which last week killed the law (or threw its status into turmoil, whichever interpretation you prefer). A formal ruling is expected.
Don't forget to share:
Riker
Nice to see that someone is finally standing up to our “fierce advocate’s” anti-gay agenda.
B
Re No. 1 · “Nice to see that someone is finally standing up to our “fierce advocate’s” anti-gay agenda.”
He doesn’t have an anti-gay agenda. Read http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/10/18/obama-on-dadt-repeal-promise-or-prediction/ (this article on what appears to be an LGBT web site, BTW, has negative things to say about Obama’s efforts as well):
—
President Obama was correct, said longtime LGBT legal scholar Arthur Leonard of New York University, when said he can’t end DADT by issuing an executive order like President Truman ended segregation of the troops in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
“The president can’t end a policy that’s embodied in a statute,” said Leonard, “and, in Truman’s case, racial segregation in the military was a traditional practice, not a statutory requirement.” Other legal scholars consulted for this article unanimously agree on that much.
But, said Leonard, “it has been argued by the Palm Center, among others, that there is a provision in U.S. law authorizing the president during times of war to suspend existing statutory personnel policies if necessary to meet the staffing needs of the military.”
…
The real problem President Obama faces on DADT, suggests legal scholar Leonard, is a political one.
“He faces the political problem that exercising his discretion as commander in chief could make it more difficult to obtain a repeal from Congress.”
—
The problem with using that provision is that it would mean that gays could be kept during a war, but would be thrown out afterwards – in other words, the government would let them serve only during times when their lives would be on the line, which is blatantly unfair. If Leonard is right about the political problem in exercising his discretion, then a temporary fix could significantly delay a permanent one. It’s basically a judgment call. There’s no obviously right answer as to tactics.
Riker
Not being able to end it with an executive order is completely irrelevant. All he had to do, in this case, was nothing at all. Just let the federal ruling stand. If he chose to take no action, the Pentagon would have complied with the ruling.
Instead, he actively chose to appeal the ruling and request that he be allowed to continue kicking our people out of the military. That, to me, suggests that he doesn’t actually want repeal to happen. Everywhere he goes, he leaves a trail of broken promises.
reason
@B: Leonard is actually incorrect in keeping soldiers during a time of war. The republicans were sure to craft the law in a manner that stop-loss will not stop the removal of soldiers that run afoul of DADT. Stop-loss is actually in effect right now. He is correct about desegregation which was military policy and DADT which has been enshrined in U.S. law.
reason
@Riker: By doing that he would be giving a low level federal court the authority to set comprehensive federal policy weakening every branch of government including the judicial. Why this would have pleased us the GOP could use the same measure to federal hate crimes law with a ruling out of Mississippi or other conservative hotbed. Decisions like that are up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Riker
@reason: Both Bush and Obama have chosen not to appeal District Court rulings they agreed with. I can recall one recent case in which a judge struck down a policy which prohibited Christians from preaching in state parks. Obama chose not to appeal at that time, because he agreed with the decision. There was no reason he couldn’t have let the decision stand.
reason
@Riker: There was a federal law that prohibited people from preaching in state parks? I am grossly unaware of that, your going to have to elaborate.
CJ
@Riker:
Are you talking about the people arrested for disorderly conduct in a city park? (They were praying silently). Obama had nothing to do with that. That was a state issue.
FYI
@CJ: You’re wrong…
From the joe.my.god blogsite…
Mike in Houston replies:
Just look at how the DOJ is treating another federal case brought on by the anti-gay Alliance Defense fund… whoops, guess Obama’s DOJ DOESN’T have to defend the law after all.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service’s regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency’s policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.
The Justice Department this week DECLINED to appeal the ruling.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/permit_process_eased_at_nation.html?hpid=news-col-blog
====================================
hmmmmmmm…really? Well, doesn’t that just set a BAD precedent for other Presidents in the future who refuse to defend other laws THEY don’t like? Geez, some Obots will say anything to defend that spineless homophobic cretin Obama. Sorry, he doesn’t get a pass on this one — except maybe from some diehard masochistic morons who are so afraid of the Republican boogeyman that they’ll let anyone take a crap on them as long as the abuser is a Democrat. Wow, talk about a bad case of Battered Wife Syndrome, geez!
Nothing is more important than the absolute, unconditional civil rights of all Americans. To let another day pass which allows injustice to continue would be a crime in itself. This federal judge was right in striking down DADT.
By the way, did Obama’s interracial parents have to wait for Congress to act before their marriage was allowed to be legal in all fifty states? Obviously, some “activist court” had to intercede…the same with school desegregation.
If the ruling is not appealed any further (as it should not be) no future Republican administration is going to put the toothpaste back into the tube after tens of thousands of Gay and Lesbian soldiers have already been serving openly for years — especially with over 70% of the public today who want it over and done with.
Obama is a disgrace. Pure and simple. If he is not challenged and then ousted in the primaries before 2012, the Democratic Party is doomed. The vast majority of political pundits (on the Left as well) are saying that this is the worst two year showing of any president in recent history. Obama must go.
San Francisco Treat
Ok there are a few points that require some clarification:
1) The POTUS DOES have the authority to stop DADT discharges temporarily under stop-loss powers.
2) The POTUS DOES NOT have the authority to instruct the Justice Department to let the ruling stand, that decision is within the province of AG Holder. (Of course, Obama could FIRE Holder for almost any reason at any time)
3) While progress on our issues is accurately characterized as SLOW, there is no measure by which you could correctly describe Obama as having an “anti-gay agenda.”
4) IF the Justice Dept decided NOT to appeal, the “one district court judge making policy for the entire country” argument is bullshit because it would be the Justice Department that let it stand AND Executive Branch officials also swear to uphold the constitution, it is not SOLELY the responsibility of the judiciary. IF AG Holder were to say “I agree this policy is unconstitutional” THEN it would be appropriate for Justice to NOT appeal.
FYI
@San Francisco Treat wrote:
2) The POTUS DOES NOT have the authority to instruct the Justice Department to let the ruling stand, that decision is within the province of AG Holder. (Of course, Obama could FIRE Holder for almost any reason at any time)
3) While progress on our issues is accurately characterized as SLOW, there is no measure by which you could correctly describe Obama as having an “anti-gay agenda.”
==========================================
In response:
I agree with everything you stated, except for #2 and #3.
On #2, yes, of course, we all know that Obama has absolutely no influence whatsoever over what cases proceed in the DoJ and that he is never in consultation with AG Holder over any of those politically charged controversial cases. Yeah, right. Please tell me that there wasn’t a “political” aspect to not appealing a federal judge’s decision to allow unfettered proselytizing of religion in federal parks like at Mount Rushmore recently. Uh, huh.
….From The Washington Post:
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 obtaining a permit, according to interim regulations to be published soon in the Federal Register.
Small groups can still apply for a permit to ensure the use of a particular location. If park officials determine that a preferred area cannot “reasonably physically accommodate 25 people,” then park supervisors may lower the number of people covered by the small group exception, a spokesman said.
The changes will “generate confusion and possibly more litigation,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Many parks do not have designated areas for public gatherings or do not clearly mark them, he said.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/permit_process_eased_at_nation.html?hpid=news-col-blog
——————–
Regarding your #3. Yes, Obama doesn’t have an overt “anti-gay agenda” anymore than a mayor in a 1950s southern town who stands by and watches the Klan hang an innocent Black man from a tree has an anti-Black agenda.
Oh, sure they may not agree with the actions of the mob, and they may even decry it publicly (when not attending public hangings, that is)… but when that individual, who decries racism and hanging Black people from trees in the middle of night, then claims that they HAD to sell the mob the very rope used in the hanging —- well, you start to doubt their commitment to civil rights and to anti-lynching laws.
Obama is that bigot. Not only is he an enabler (refusal to sign a stop gap order on further discharges resulting from DADT), but Obama is also the one selling the rope to the executioners by insisting on repealing a federal court order to put an end to legally sanctioned persecution and discrimination against Gays and Lesbians in the military.
Yes, Obama IS a bigot. An not even a benign bigot…but the worst kind of bigot — the duplicitous, two-faced kind of bigot. Of that there is no doubt. Actions speak louder than words — even Obama’s syrupy, lying, weasel words.
B
No. 3 · Riker wrote, “Not being able to end it with an executive order is completely irrelevant. All he had to do, in this case, was nothing at all. Just let the federal ruling stand. If he chose to take no action, the Pentagon would have complied with the ruling. Instead, he actively chose to appeal the ruling and request that he be allowed to continue kicking our people out of the military. That, to me, suggests that he doesn’t actually want repeal to happen. Everywhere he goes, he leaves a trail of broken promises.”
First, the Pentagon is complying with the ruling as the judge is not going to issue a stay. Second, during the trail, the DoJ called no witnesses and simply entered the legislative history of the DADT bill as evidence. In other words, they said, “well, here’s what they thought when they passed it, so please decide if they were reasonable or not and whether misconceptions from 20 years ago are a justification today for keeping what the president thinks is a bad law.” An appeal will simply ask the same question at a higher level – most likely another nail in the coffin.
Brutus
@FYI: You’re really insufferable. “Everyone’s a bigot! Wahh!” My God, take a minute and look around you. Look at everything that has happened in the JUST SEVEN YEARS since it could no longer be constitutional to make it ILLEGAL to be gay. The LGBT movement has progressed at BLINDING speed when compared to history. I’m not saying we should kick back on the recliner and call it a day, but keep some perspective, man.