Judge Rejects Govt. DADT Stay

[JackBeck]

Source: The Advocate

Judge Skeptical of Govt. Arguments
By Andrew Harmon

U.S district judge Virginia A. Phillips issued a tentative ruling Monday rejecting the government’s request for a stay in the injunction against “don’t ask, don’t tell" but will issue a formal ruling by late Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

During the 25-minute hearing, Phillips wasted no time in rejecting the government's arguments that barring dadt immediately would be an undue burden on the military and called the justice department's declarations to the court both vague and insufficient.

Assistant U.S attorney Paul Freeborne asked the court for a five day administrative stay so it can pursue an appeal of the injunction to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

Story developing.

Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/18/Judge_Phillips_Rejects_Government_DADT_Stay/

[TheWraith]

1. Not really a surprise.

A stay of a court order is usually done to prevent something from happening before the appeal has a chance to be heard. In this case, the court order itself prevents something from happening.

[handmade34]

2. "undue burden on the military"

hogwash! baloney!

[Newsjock]

3. The freakin' DOJ just won't give up

They lose again, and now they want to try again for a stay? Just a "five-day" administrative stay!?

[Tx4obama]

4. Her final official ruling won't be until later today or tomorrow. n/t

[Politicub]

5. Love this judge

and how she's standing up for equality.

[progressoid]

6. The term "Department of Justice" seems to be more and more of a misnomer.

[rhett o rick]

7. Some one please explain why the administration is fighting so hard to deny human rights

to the gay community?

[U4ikLefty]

8. 3-D chess

...or something like that

[rhett o rick]

9. Wont the SCOTUS rule that it's Constitutional? nm

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. I will, reluctantly.

The DOJ has a mandate to represent the Government in legal cases.
Therefore, when the Gov. is sued, even for a law that is years old, the current DOJ must go to court.

Tho since they managed to screw up and let a lot of crooked politicians and slimy corporations go free, you would think they could screw up in our favor once in a while.

[rhett o rick]

12. Seems to me if they just stalled for years it would be best. nm

[laconicsax]

14. They don't have a mandate to appeal.

While an argument can be made for why they should appeal, they aren't required to do so. The DOJ already defended the law and lost. They've done their job.

[_ed_]

16. Incorrect

Presidents in the past, including Clinton, have refused to defend laws that they deem are unconstitutional, as Obama could do here. There's really no excuse for this.

[Skittles]

13. because they are homophobic?

[laconicsax]

15. Haven't you heard?

It's just one song a two minute prayer a poor choice of words one appeal.

[boppers]

11. Brilliantly failing.

I hope the DoJ takes this all the way to *failing* to present any valid arguments to the Supreme Court, and then stare decisis kicks in and settles the issue for at least 15-20 (or more) years.

In 100 years, people will wonder what the heck the fuss was all about.

[rhett o rick]

17. I have no confidence in the SCOTUS. If he does appeal, DADT is dead.

Then the supporters would have the action and start over.