= new reply since forum marked as read
And it's not necessarily a defeat for Obama -- like "Don't Ask Don't Tell," all he can do is sigh, "I fought the law and the law won..."
rocktivity
"Woo hoo... woo hoo hoo!" over and over.
from a Japanese all-female trio who was also featured in a Kill Bill movie.
For me, it's just an efficient way of saying "Woo hoo!" when I get good news on DU.
rocktivity
It tickles me. 
that most here are ignoring. 
in filing this suit.
Too bad it's lost in the shuffle with everything else that's going on.
Hearty kick and DU rec. 
and she absolutely nailed the problem regarding how the Government has been using 'National Security' to force people, including judges she points out, into accepting them.
This took a lot of courage on her part as there is no doubt she will be accused of supporting terrorists, or damaging National Security etc.
But from the beginning of the destruction of our rights, the question has always been, what are we supposed to be fighting for in this Global WOT? THEY said the 'terrorists hate our freedoms', so then we give them what they want. None of it ever made sense.
It is a pleasure to read a rational overview by an intelligent judge, of the threat these laws actually are to what has been falsely claimed to be the rationale for the WOT.
She points out too in her decision that the Government was unable to present any adequate defense against the plaitiff's case. I guess they just do what they are told without question and never expected to be challenged.
for Judge Katherine B. Forrest
and you're right, it's too rare. let's hear it for due process!!! 
DURec!
The power mongers/progs are pissed at the ruling for some reason, not sure why.
Given all the propaganda, lies, confusing reports, etc... I've lost track. This is what I think I understand:
1. The original part of the NDAA that we don't like was introduced by House Tea Party members as part of their toxic amendment game plan.
2. The Senate version had a less draconian provisions.
3. In the reconciliation phase between the two bills, the Tea Party did their "my way or the highway" stance, like in way too many other issues.
4. Obama back the House version if only because the rest of the damn bill was needed. I thought his line of reasoning was that even if it is in the law, he could ignore it.
5. Now I'm hearing that Obama is fighting the injunction... Is he fighting for all the provisions, some of the provisions, or what?
Again, this is what I think what happened. Where did I go wrong?
"The Obama administration, with the clear and obvious option to at least drag out the case, failed to even try. And they used an appeal already, on August 6th. Had they not done so, should the President be defeated in November, the new President would have been within the window in order to file an appeal based on the judgement date of the case, which would have been on February 12th of next year. Instead, that window closes on January 6th, due to this earlier action, closing the window for appeal before the end of President Obama’s first term.
Hopefully, the above emboldened dates for possible appeal are not just the author's opinion, and he didn't just make these dates up just to support his argument. 
I'm trying to find out what his legal source of the information about the appeal dates is, that's all.
I want to see the proof that these deadlines/dates for appeal are legally factual, and I don't know where to find this proof. In his article, the author should have linked to the source of this information.
The fact that he did not provide this source for his reading audience, which he could have very easily done, is what has my made my bullshit radar go up. If he had provided his source of information for those dates, he would have a great deal weight behind his opinions.
I'm not saying he is wrong, I just want to see evidence that will lead me to believe that he is correct.
