FLASH: Federal Appeals Court Permits Short-Term Reinstatement of Ban on Gays Serving Openly

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Appeals court stays ruling on gays in military

SAN FRANCISCO | Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:17pm EDT
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the Pentagon may temporarily reinstate a ban on openly gay men and women in uniform while a lengthier stay in favor of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is considered.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco added to the disarray surrounding a landmark legal battle that already has forced the U.S. military to welcome openly gay recruits for the first time.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J3Y120101020

[QC]

1. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[Sweet Charming Dem]

2. What fierce advocacy.

:puke:

[Tesha]

4. Well, for someone. (NT)

[villager]

3. Well done, current Dept. of "Justice"

Undoubtedly what voters had in mind by "change."

[RKP5637]

22. Yeah, change you can believe in... all I can think is WTF. n/t

[crim son]

19. What's your problem?

Obama never said anything about reversing DADT, right? Oh, wait... :sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

24. Obama never said anything about a lower level district court ruling on DADT, he said CONGRESS n/t

[ThomCat]

43. What incentive does Congress Ever have to overturn DADT

while they see Obama fighting so hard to RETAIN it, and keep it fully in force?

He is doing everything he can to protect DADT above and beyond the call of duty. That delivers a strong message from his bully pulpit.

He could have been campaigning for the repeal of DADT. When there was an actual chance to vote down DADT he did absolutely NOTHING to add his political clout to the efforts to rally support to get votes. NOTHING. He stayed out of it, and let it fail.

That, in and of itself, was one way he protected DADT, and he has done everything he could to ACTIVELY to protect DADT as well. From actively defending it in court even when it wasn't necessary, to refusing requests use executive privilege, to repeatedly "studying the issue" as a way of delaying efforts to get a repeal, Obama has been the master of keeping DADT in effect.

Anyone who actually believes that Obama really wants to see DADT overturned at this point is a fool.

[laconicsax]

46. But...but...but...

He said he wants it repealed and calls himself a fierce advocate, and since I refuse to think critically on issues relating to the best President of all time, I believe him with every fiber of my being.

(Do I need to add :sarcasm: or is it clear enough already?)

[No Elephants]

50. While he was campaigning, he said Congress would do it? I call bs.

[ruggerson]

5. I think even people who are not passionate about this issue

are going to see this as jerking a minority group around by the neck and it's not going to be well received.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. That's the 7th time you've posted that. You're spamming the forum.

If you're interested in posting something new instead of spam, can you tell me if the law requires the DoJ to request a stay on the ruling so that it can appeal, or could it just appeal, and allow the ruling to stand in the mean time?

[QC]

18. Well, time is at a premium

when one has an entire community to bully and harass day in and day out.

[No Elephants]

49. Self delete. Wrong spot.

[No Elephants]

52. Requestng a stay pending appeal is not required by law. An appeal is not required by law, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. I was wondering about whether the DoJ was doing the minimum to get this settled by the Supreme Cour

Some people are saying that the way to get this settled once and for all is for a Supreme Court decision saying it's unconstitutional; that way, a future Republican Congress and President wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to reintroduce it. And I can see that point of view. But, if that were the sole purpose of Obama's govt/the DoJ, then they could, presumably, set the appeal process going without requesting a stay, so that, for the time being, DADT is not enforced.

By requesting a stay, the DoJ seems to have made an active effort to keep out/throw out gay and lesbian people from the military. The wording, that they claim it causes "irreparable harm", points to that conclusion too - it's not just the legal process for them, they really do want to discriminate.

Thanks for the clarification. I despair at what Obama is doing with this.

[Tx4obama]

7. Everyone should have accepted the fact that CONGRESS needs to do the repeal.

This should come to no surprise to anyone.
We can't have district level federal judges making law from the bench!
President Obama is correct on this issue.

[GodlessBiker]

11. Like Congress, not the courts, should have ended Seaprate but Equal schools?

[Tx4obama]

23. There's a big difference between The SCOTUS and a district court.

Do you want the lower level district courts to have the final say on other important issues such as The HealthCare Reform Act? DOMA? Campaign Finance? Etc?
I think not.

[GodlessBiker]

33. If no one appeals a district court decision, it stands. Simple as that.

And I don't believe the Supreme Court is any wiser or better equipped to decide these issues than a district court. It's just a matter or power and which side you are on.

[No Elephants]

51. Better if Scalia and Tea Party Thomas and friends have the final word, as in Bush v. Gore?

[24601]

30. The Constitutional difference is that Congress is not delegated

any powers over schools which are rarely federal in any case. DoD and Coast Guard Academies would be an exception - which is why it took legislation to admit women in the summer of 1976.

Conversely, Article 1, Section 8 has expressly delegated Congress powers, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

Whether DADT is good or bad law just isn't relevant to being a Constitutional one. The President probably won't say so, but he also understands that changing it by judges throws red meat to the electorate far more than changing it via the legislative process.

Congressional powers also are silent on regulating marriage which normally is not a federal issue. Thus, DOMA isn't in the same situation. Not only that, DOMA is undercut by Article 4, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." I predict will fall and the only way to resurrect it would be a Constitutional Amendment and Congress won't pass one unless it's getting close to 2/3 of the states calling for a Constitutional Convention - the real nuclear option.

[GodlessBiker]

35. So, how does what you said affect whether separate but equal schools should have been ...

eliminated by Congress or by the courts?

[24601]

37. "Should" have been done by state legislatures. Had non-federal

schools been desegregated by Congress, the Constitutional question would have been "by what authority?" Tying it to the commerce clause would have been a stretch but, depending on the court, might have worked.

However, if the Constitution said, "Congress shall make all rules for schools located within the United States" and Congress had then segregated them by legislation, Brown v. Board as we know it probably wouldn't have occurred. And it would have been shitty, but likely Constitutional.

Constitutional doesn't necessarily equate to good - just ask those engaged in the death penalty debate.

Thanks for asking.

[No Elephants]

56. Nope. The 14th amendment applies to, and binds, the states, whether or not states like it.

[No Elephants]

54. Court, not Congress, ordered racial de-segregation of public schools.

Congress gets publisc AND private schools to do what it wants by placing conditions on receipt of federal money, an exercise of its spending power.

Constitution makes President CIC, so s/he and Congress have concurrent power over U.S. Armed Forces. Hence no one has ever suggested Truman acted un-Constitutionally when he integrated the military, or that Reagan acted un-Constitutionally when he excluded gays.

Clinton and Obama went to Congress for political cover, not bc they lacked power.

[Odin2005]

26. You do know that that same argument was used by segregationists, right?

[jgraz]

28. Appropriate. If you're against the repeal of DADT, you ARE a segregationist.

Same goes for believing that marriage is "between a man and a woman".

[Tx4obama]

31. I am 100% for the repeal of DADT by Congress, and Dan Choi is a hero in my eyes. n/t

[jgraz]

41. So gays should have equal rights, but only if they go through proper channels.

OK, good to know. :eyes:

[Tx4obama]

42. That is not what I said. Have a nice evening ;) n/t

[jgraz]

48. You strongly implied it.

Or are you also 100% for the repeal of DADT by having the Obama administration refuse to appeal the court's ruling?

[No Elephants]

59. Court IS the proper channel for challenging Constitutionality of a law.

[ThomCat]

45. Then you are NOT 100% for the repeal of DADT.

Because you are only for the repeal of DADT if you are allowed to dictate to the LGBT community what tactics, methods, and avenues we can pursue.

You are only for the repeal of DADT if you can be up there on a high horse telling us what to do and what not to do.

You are only for the repeal of DADT if you can tell us to wait a long, long time for some better time that may never come that would be more politically convenient for you and the straight people in the party, because God Forbid that any of you be inconvenienced by having to spend any political capital!

That is NOT being 100% in support of the repeal of DADT! :grr:

[No Elephants]

57. Bingo!

[ThomCat]

44. No, everyone should not be required to accept that, because it

was never true, and isn't true. Civil rights have OFTEN been achieved through the courts.

This B.S. that "only Congress can act" is a LIE created by people who want to justify why Obama doesn't have to do anything to help 'those damned Queers' if he doesn't want to. :eyes:

It's political cover for a refusal to stand up for a minority group. We understand that. We're used to is. It's even what we expected. We even expected it from a lot of our so-called allies.

You're not fooling us.

[No Elephants]

53. LOL!

[No Elephants]

55. Um, federal and state judges make law from the bench EVERY DAY.

That is how our "common law" legal system works--and is supposed to work.

Damn the colonists for choosing to adopt BOTH the statutory and judge made (common law) law (of England and using the same common law and equity legal system used in England. They should have foreseeen someone might try to hold Obama accountable for his D of J.

[Newsjock]

8. Obama to gays: Happy Spirit Day

You can bet the 'fierce advocate' isn't wearing purple today. A sucker punch for those who were suckered into voting for him.

[davidinalameda]

9. I know that I'm not making that same mistake in 2012

[Sweet Charming Dem]

12. Hillary Clinton wore purple today

[Newsjock]

16. It's true

[No Elephants]

61. Looks blue to me.

[Bluebear]

13. Congratulations, Mr. President!

[RetroLounge]

14. More changey hopey bullshit

Watch the circle-Ds come in now and defend it too.

:puke:

RL

[lyris]

15. Response to Federal Appeals Court Permits Short-Term Reinstatement of Ban on Gays Serving Openly

While I want the repeal of DADT, I want it repealed forever. I
know that President Obama wanted the Legislative branch to
make it a bill which he would have gladly signed, but if we go
through the courts it may be overturned by the fascist five in
the Supreme Court.

I really hope I'm wrong, but if you look at the f.f.'s track
record there's little doubt they will strike down allowing
gays and lesbians from serving once it is known that they are
gays and lesbians.

[laconicsax]

21. So what's your point?

That this should be a legislative issue?

Vectron knows legislation can't ever be repealed.

[No Elephants]

63. Point is: Damn Article III of the Constitution and your little 14th Amendment, too!

[laconicsax]

71. Did you post this in the wrong place?

[No Elephants]

62. A law made by Congress is not forever. For example, DADT was a law made by Congress.

Any Congress can repeal or amend any law of Congress, even five minutes after it becomes law, IF IT CHOOSES. Ditto any Exec and and an EO. Neither Congres nor the Exec, however, has any power over a constitutional decision by a federal court.

I"but if we go through the courts it may be overturned by the fascist five in the Supreme Court."

"We" ARE going through the courts. "We" had no choice but to go through the district court bc someone sued there--and won. The only way this gets to "the fascist five in the Supreme Court" is if the D of J appeals--which it has. So, thank Holder and Obama for appealing.


P.S. Welicome to DU. The counter indicates that was your very first DU post ever--and I take the oounter at its word, er, at its numeral.

[laconicsax]

17. There's that "ultra-liberal" 9th circuit again.

:eyes:

[Newsjock]

20. What do those 21 senators have to say about this?

The ones who urged Obama not to appeal.

Some of these senators are up for re-election in two weeks, and my absentee ballot is sitting here, just waiting for me to fill it out and mail it. I'd sure like to know before then what they think of this latest move by the administration. And yes, to be perfectly clear, I will withhold my vote if necessary.

Senators:
Udall (CO)
Gillibrand
Kerry
Schumer
Burris
Whitehouse
Landrieu
Sanders
Merkley
Shaheen
Johnson
Franken
Boxer
Feingold
Lautenberg
Durbin
Menendez
Bennet
Mikulski
Sherrod Brown
Cardin

[Tx4obama]

27. Keep in mind that not all senators are lawyers & many have no formal legal training . n/t

[No Elephants]

66. I'd vote for a Senator who urged Obama not to appeal, esp. somone like Landrieu.

She took a big political risk that could cost her her seat.

What do you expect them to say now, anyway? "Mr. President, I wish you hadn't ignored my plea?" That's so obvious, it goes without saying.


And I'd be a lot more concerned with the 79 Senators who never said a word than I would be with expecting the 21 who did take a stand--and a political risk--to repeat themselves now, when it's too late to stop an appeal anyway. JMO


His refusal to do as they asked is on him at this point, not on them.

[Odin2005]

25. "BUT IT'S JUST ONE SONG!!!"

[jgraz]

29. It's only a FIVE MINUTE APPEAL!!

:puke:

[laconicsax]

47. It's just a POOR CHOICE OF WORDS!!!. n/t

[Tx4obama]

32. The last seven paragraphs on the link below

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T1

[No Elephants]

69. Nothing new there.

[KoKo]

34. This is becoming like "paddle tennis." ball going back and forth..back and forth...

It's really disgusting and smacks of politics before an election.

[Tx4obama]

36. Comment from the Log Cabin Republicans' lawyer

A lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans said the group was disappointed with the appeals court's action.

"We view the decision as nothing more than a minor setback," Dan Woods said. "We didn't come this far to quit now, and we expect that once the Ninth Circuit has received and considered full briefing on the government's application for a stay, it will deny that application."

[redirish28]

38. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Temporarily Upheld By Appeals Court

Source: Huffington Post

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily granted the U.S. government's request for a freeze on a judge's order requiring the military to allow openly gay troops.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed lawyers for the gay rights group that brought the lawsuit successfully challenging the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to file arguments in response by Monday.

The judges would then decide whether to extend the temporary stay while it considers the government's appeal of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling that the policy was unconstitutional


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/dont-ask-dont-tell-tempor_n_770737.html

[Bolo Boffin]

39. OK, let me try to defend this.

OK, say that DADT is a prisoner on death row. He's sentenced to death by lethal injection. Is the state supposed to just let him die or suffer if he has a heart attack or is wounded in a prison fight? No, they give him medical care, they revive him, even though they are going to eventually carry out the sentence of death.

That's what's going on here. The Obama Adminstration keeps reviving DADT so that they can carry out the sentence of death in the proper place: Congress. (or the Supreme Court, if they can get it that far.)

That's the best I've got. Yeah, it stinks, doesn't it? Reviving DADT on Spirit Day. Thanks, President Obama! :(

[HuckleB]

40. The timing is outlandish, indeed.

:cry:

I do see your argument, as well as the other arguments about the administration's supposed duty here. However, why did they push the timing this way? And why did the panel have go this route? I don't understand either decision.

[No Elephants]

68. Your posting that Congress. is the proper place does not make it so.

Please see Reply ##s 59 and 62.

[No Elephants]

67. No surprise a court backs the govt on this, is it?

Const. gives both Pres and Congress power over the military. They and the Pentagon are looking at this now (allegedly)--AND D of J is claiming potential danger. If you were a judge, what would you do about a stay?

[John Kerry VonErich]

58. I don't want DADT repealed for the simple fact of just letting them in.

I want guarantees to not only serve honorably, but serve in a safe HOME environment. Without any fear of being physically and emotionally in danger by bigoted fellow soldiers.

[xchrom]

60. recommend

[Jester Messiah]

64. Dammit so much.

I want to support the President, especially this close to elections, but he's been so gutless over this. Why oh why can't he stand up and -lead- on this?

[laconicsax]

70. He is standing up and leading on this.

He's clearly committed to keeping DADT in place, and is leading the opposition to its repeal.

Sucks, doesn't it?