So some annoying news for paperwork foes: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — the same place that granted a stay in Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling killing Prop 8 — has granted DoJ’s request for an emergency stay of Judge Virginia Phillips’ ruling DADT is unconstitutional, which means Phillips’ decision is on hold only until the Ninth Circuit can decide whether it wants to issue another stay while it hears the appeal. Confusing! Hope you didn’t celebrate early by coming out.
reason
Everyone knew this was coming, repeal will only be granted by the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Michael
This is exactly why the administration needs to keep appealing until the Supreme Court irreversibly repeals it (or Congress acts). The law could be repealed now, and then under the next Republican administration, could be challenged.
This is the same way our country integrated public schools and achieved civil rights for African-Americans.
Kev C
The DoD and DoJ would rather spend their energy fighting gay americans than fighting enemies and criminals. Obama FAIL.
the crustybastard
I’m pretty sure I’ve had about all the fierce advocacy I can take.
Not only is this b.s. unethical, it doesn’t make any political sense right before the midterm elections. Repeatedly going to the mat to keep the gay ban in place won’t make anybody decide to vote Democrat, but it will make a bunch of people decide not to vote for any more bait-and-switch Democrats.
Democrats don’t win by sufficient margins to have the luxury of telling their remaining constituencies to go fuck themselves anymore.
This appeal is unnecessary, tonedeaf, and counterproductive.
GetEqualNow
Please join getEqual at a big protest tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit Court. These judges can’t tell us what to do. We need to embarrass them the way we did Obama and they will reverse their Order.
Robin is going to give a speech about using anger and abuse to beat your opponents. She is going to dress up like a Judge and make a few rulings. Count this lesbian in. Robin knows how to treat people and most politicians fear her. Judges are next. Get em babe!
You Must Demand Stuff
It’s time for another hunger strike Dan Choi.
Don’t you dare judge me. I demand respect and I think it’s time to fire these judges and give more money to activists like Choi and the people at getEquality. We will never get anything until enough people know we will hurt them. Did you hear that Judges? We’re coming for you next.
Michael
@You Must Demand Stuff: I’m not really judging you right now. I’m just saying that you’re insane and nothing you just said makes sense.
Sacramento
Obama FAIL. He just lost my next vote, I’m off to the Green party.
FYI
By the way, The Department of Justice decided recently not to appeal a Federal Court ruling brought by the anti-gay Alliance Fund that would allow them unfettered, permit-less, religious mob gatherings and the “right” to proselytize and harass tourists in our national parks. Got it! The Department of Justice decided NOT TO APPEAL a federal law passed by Congress.
What’s this? Weren’t we were all lead to believe (falsely) that it was DoJ’s obligation to defend all laws passed by Congress.
…Hmmmmmmm. Were we lied to again?
This recent federal court ruling the Obama’s goons at the DoJ DECLINED TO APPEAL because letting religious fanatics harass tourists in national parks is more important than allowing Gays and Lesbian soldiers the dignity of being who they are while fighting and dying for their ungrateful and undeserving country:
….From The Washington Post:
“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
Devon
Obama failed, the congress failed, the Democrats have failed.
I think I’ll write-in vote for Jason Voorhees this year. At least with him you know you’re gonna get stabbed in the back.
Michael
Here is The Huffington Post’s article published 20 minutes ago explaining the Department of Justice’s duty to defend laws passed by Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/dadt-conflict-explained-w_n_771035.html
jason
The Huffington Post is a crappy, pro-Obama website run by Democratic Party ass kissers. Avoid at all costs. Arianna Huffington can go fuck herself.
Michael
@jason: Yes, we should all go read FoxNews.com, The Drudge Report or GlennBeck.com.
Eyeroll.
Michael
@Sacramento: Let us know how that goes. Maybe you’ll break .0001% in 2012!
Cam
CNN is taking comments on this. The heading starts with “Valerie Jarret”
Go to the bottom and “Add a Comment”
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/
They let her get away with saying that the DOJ HAS to defend the laws, apparently CNN isn’t aware of….
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.
Kieran
Obama to the gay community: Drop Dead.
DR
Obama apologists need to stop reciting the incorrect mantra that “he has to defend” DADT. NO HE DOESN’T.
Carter, Reagan, both Bushes AND Clinton all sat back and failed to file appeals in certain cases where they knew the appeal was counter to what their administrations stood for. Obama’s a freaking con law professor, he knows this.
Tim W
@Michael: Hmmmm maybe you might want to check out post 15 before you start spewing crap again. I swear the Obamabots will say anything.
the crustybastard
@DR:
Yeah, but you must at least concede “the administration has a traditional obligation to defend all laws” is certainly more polite than, “STRAIGHT POWER! SUCK IT, FAGS.”
Obama is a bigot. More polite than most.
the crustybastard
@Michael:
So Green Party votes don’t have any effect on elections?
Is that what President Gore told you?
Queer Supremacist
@Kieran:
Gay community to Obama: You first.
DR
@the crustybastard:
Heh, I almost wrote something like that in my original post, but decided to stick with an admittedly snarky recitation of the law.
I don’t buy for a second that Obama is on our side (or anyone’s side) but his own.
Hell, Ted Olsem just said the Obama administration needs to give it up, acknowledging that the administration is under no obligation to defend the law in court (and for those with short-term memory, this is the lead attorney in Perry v Schwarzenegger who also happens to be the former Solicitor General under GW Bush, so he knows of what he speaks).
link for that: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/olson-injunction/
Obama just doesn’t care about DADT, ENDA or anything else which would make him look like a real-live progressive President. Well, I’m siding with Dan Choi….since he doesn’t want to do his job, I’m not voting for him.
the crustybastard
@DR:
I had a strict rule about only voting for candidates who earned my vote. No default partisan voting. I broke that rule when I voted for Obama, who I knew to be a polite bigot, but only because I had grave concerns that John McCain was exhibiting signs of dementia — increased aggression, inability to focus, personality changes, irrational decision-making, etc.
Neither man has proven me wrong.
I believe that the political duopoly, for the foreseeable future, is very content to present me the same sort of choice: the polite bigot, or the delusional bigot.
Likewise, I believe that self-styled liberals will continue to be content to insist that polite is vastly better than crazy, utterly ignoring that the bigotry is the same.
B
“What’s this? Weren’t we were all lead to believe (falsely) that it was DoJ’s obligation to defend all laws passed by Congress.”
They are supposed to defend all laws that are not obviously unconstitutional – i.e., all ones where there is a reasonable expectation of winning the case. I.e., if they had passed a law requiring everyone in the U.S. to worship Dagon, they DoJ doesn’t have to defend it – that it would be thrown out on first-amendment grounds is obvious.
Not that worshiping Dagon might not be a lot of fun: check out http://sfopera.com/opera.asp?o=250&i=118 , start the video, and wait for the bacchanal at the end (with scantily-glad, male dancers gyrating in a pagan ritual).