Feds object to 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Federal government attorneys say a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a federal judge to halt the military's ban on openly gay troops is untenable.

Department of Justice attorneys said in their objection filed Thursday in U.S. District Court that Judge Virginia A. Phillips should limit any injunction to the members of the gay rights organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, which filed the lawsuit, and an unnamed plaintiff.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/23/state/n162114D37.DTL&tsp=1

[LonePirate]

1. There's more of that unwavering Obama support for the DADT repeal.

We receive enough lies from the Rethuglicans. Does Obama have to join them in that regard?

[Tx4obama]

3. The DOJ is legally obligated to defend the current law. Don't blame Obama on this one!

Congress has to hurry up and get those 60 votes for the Defense Appropriations bill which includes the repeal of DADT, then this will no longer be an issue.

[terrya]

6. Congress won't do anything until after the midterms.

FYI.

[Javaman]

45. And they they won't do anything until after the 2012 elections...

and then they won't do anything until the 2014 midterms and then they won't do anything until the 2016 and then they won't do anything until the 2018 midterms and then they won't do anything until the 2020 elections...on and on and on...

I really have issues with that excuse.

[Bumblebee]

8. I am sure, after the elections, when all 100 senators are Dems, we will definitely have it!

:sarcasm:

[Matariki]

47. Yeah, and at that point The Senate will require 101 votes to do anything

[Tx4obama]

4. Read why below

Excerpt:

In a 14-page brief, Justice Department attorneys argued that a permanent injunction against enforcing the 17-year-old law — one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in federal court and has argued for an immediate halt of DADT enforcement throughout the armed forces — would be "untenable."

"Any injunction in this case must be limited to plaintiff LCR and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of the statute fails as a threshold matter," assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

Among the government’s arguments, Freeborne wrote that an injunction would preclude the government both from litigating other legal challenges to DADT and considering the terms of a stay barring discharges of gay and lesbian service members.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/23/DOJ_Counters_Log_Cabin_to_Keep_DADT/

[Tx4obama]

2. The DOJ is only doing their job. Don't blame Obama, he wants DADT to be gone! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Then we should be hearing him use his Bully Pulpit to say so

as promised, any time now, right?

[awoke_in_2003]

7. that would require leadership. nt

[guruoo]

14. And once again, today...

In Janurary...
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM%20%3Cimg%20src=
And once again, today...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9191847

[guruoo]

10. BTDT...

Obama calls for 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

January 27, 2010

President Obama said Wednesday night he will work with Congress and the military to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces.

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it," he said.

"We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate," he said.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that works with those affected by the "don't ask, don't tell" law, praised Obama's call for repeal.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM:POLITICS

[boppers]

13. Have you been listening?

http://thepage.time.com/statement-gibbs-on-justice-department-filing-in-log-cabin-republicans-v-united-states-of-america-september-23-2010/

[Bumblebee]

9. but he is oh so powerless... who is he, after all -- just a president.

[defendandprotect]

11. Disgraceful ...!!

[Tx4obama]

12. STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

Statement: Gibbs on Justice Department filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America September 23, 2010

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don't Ask, Don't tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This filing in no way diminishes the President's firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy. The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold. The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal. And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal. The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

http://thepage.time.com/statement-gibbs-on-justice-department-filing-in-log-cabin-republicans-v-united-states-of-america-september-23-2010/

[kpete]

15. DOJ to Judge: Keep Enforcing DADT

Source: The Advocate

Posted on Advocate.com September 23, 2010
DOJ to Judge: Keep Enforcing DADT
By Advocate.com Editors


The Department of Justice issued a request Thursday to a U.S. district court judge asking to keep enforcing the military's ban on gay and lesbian service members.

In a 14-page brief, Justice Department attorneys argued that a permanent injunction against enforcing the 17-year-old law — one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in federal court and has argued for an immediate halt of DADT enforcement throughout the armed forces — would be "untenable."

"Any injunction in this case must be limited to plaintiff LCR and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of the statute fails as a threshold matter," assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

Among the government’s arguments, Freeborne wrote that an injunction would preclude the government both from litigating other legal challenges to DADT and considering the terms of a stay barring discharges of gay and lesbian service members.

Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/23/DOJ_Counters_Log_Cabin_to_Keep_DADT/

[customerserviceguy]

16. Is the Commander in Chief on board with this?

Just askin'...

[katandmoon]

18. I highly doubt we'll hear the fierce advocate criticizing it...

[DRoseDARs]

19. If only there were some way, some elected office he could run for, were he might have some sway...

...since being President doesn't count for beans.

Sidenote: His role as CIC has exactly zero to do with the DOJ, just saying. It's strictly his role in the military command structure. DOJ is civilian.

[TheWraith]

20. Obama does not directly control the DOJ.

He appoints the chief administrators, yes. However, the DOJ is an independent entity like the FCC and FDA, for checks and balances reasons. Furthermore, they don't get to pick and choose what laws get enforced.

[24601]

22. Disagree, He can issue an order to the Attorney General just like

any other cabinet officer. If not followed, he can remove him, and the next one, etc. until someone does. The President, not the Attorney is the runs the Executive Branch and sets policy for the Departments. His only limitation is that his decisions must be Constitutional and Legal. If he runs amok, the remedy is impeachment, trial and removal.

[tritsofme]

23. The attorney general as well as USAs serve at the pleasure of the president. nt

[depakid]

28. That and the fact that there's no duty whatsoever to enforce or defend unconstitutional laws

Thomas Jefferson pretty much settled that with the Alien and Sedition Acts

and then and course there's this "unfortunate" analysis:

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

[ruggerson]

35. exactly

When a statute has been declared unconstitutional, the DOJ is under no obligation whatsoever to defend it.

[metapunditedgy]

26. And Reagan had nothing to do with Iran-Contra. Talking point fail. Send in the next

XxxXxxxx talking point dispenser....

[ruggerson]

34. I don't think even you believe that any longer

n/t

[katandmoon]

17. Fuckers.

[blackspade]

21. What?

And here I thought DOJ stood for Department of JUSTICE.

Not a whole lot of justice flying around Washington these days.

[sadbear]

24. It's almost like they want to get crushed in November.

[metapunditedgy]

25. Well, they're forced to choose between doing good for the voters and doing

good for the corporations. It's a difficult choice.

[boppers]

27. Cue the outrage from people who don't understand law.

*sigh*

[metapunditedgy]

29. Amen! The law says SIT IN THE BACK OF THE BUS and that's what people damn well better do! n/t

[boppers]

32. Do you want DADT to end, or not?

If you want to it end, you need to be cheering for the DoJ to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, defending it just as strongly as they did in this case (which, by the way, was done brilliantly, they basically said, "well, it's the law", and shrugged their shoulders).

Without that process, DADT is only struck down for:
a) members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and
b) only in California.

As it currently stands, a judge in, say, Georgia can find DADT totally Constitutional, reversing the California decision, and thus lift the proposed injunction.

[metapunditedgy]

33. I want Obama to stand up and say, "This DADT shit should be illegal. *Most*Americans* want gays to

serve openly in the military, and so do I. The only opposition comes from a few close-minded bigots who need to learn AGAIN that their close-mindedness does not trump anybody's human rights."

I don't believe in 5-dimensional invisible chess games. So far, all the 5-dimensional invisible chess I've seen has turned into excuses for not changing shit that needs to be changed.

[Tx4obama]

40. Yep. It has to go all the way to the SCOTUS or it must be permanently repealed by Congress.

One ruling by one judge in California is not enough to get rid of it for good.
The DOJ was correct in filing the objection to the injunction, in my opinion.

[ruggerson]

36. In this case it's you who lack understanding

n/t

[boppers]

39. You think a single lower court case can change Congressional law?

That lone judges have more power than congress and the executive branch combined?

[ruggerson]

41. You think they're required to seek a narrowing of injunctive relief?

Once a statute has been found unconstitutional?

[boppers]

42. They (meaning the DOJ) aren't *required*, but they damn well should.

Remedies are limited to plaintiffs for a good reason.

[ruggerson]

43. Not when people are actively being deprived of their rights under the constitution

n/t

[boppers]

44. Oh, so when some racist judge decides that racism is fair, you support it.

We have the process for a reason.

[Tx4obama]

30. eom. n/t

[Tx4obama]

31. STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

Statement: Gibbs on Justice Department filing in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America September 23, 2010

Today, the Department of Justice made a filing in a legal challenge to the Don't Ask, Don't tell (DADT) policy, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This filing in no way diminishes the President's firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy. The President was disappointed earlier this week when a majority of the Senate was willing to proceed with National Defense Authorization Act, but political posturing created a 60 vote threshold. The President spoke out against DADT in his first State of the Union Address, and the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have both testified in support of repeal. And the Department of Defense continues to work on a plan on how to implement repeal. The President, along with his Administration, will continue to work with the Senate Leadership to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT as outlined in the NDAA this fall.

http://thepage.time.com/statement-gibbs-on-justice-department-filing-in-log-cabin-republicans-v-united-states-of-america-september-23-2010/

[ruggerson]

37. When a statute is found UNCONSTITUTIONAL the gov't is not obliged to defend it

nor seek to narrow injunctive relief.

[depakid]

38. kind of expected the usual excuses

That 60 vote for everything don't bother to put up a fight horseshit certainly has seemed convenient -though it may seem a whole lot less so in retrospect on the morning of November 3rd.

[defendandprotect]

46. You think FEDS would be more bothered by inequality of DADT ...!!!