Spot the disconnect: A month ago the Senate held a "vote" on DADT which failed

[kenny blankenship]

we are told that the President supported the effort to bring DADT to a vote in the Senate and supported its repeal. Had the vote succeeded -everyone knew in advance that it absolutely would not- DADT would be dead. And certain people round here tell us that this would be instantaneous death and forever.

A week ago, a Federal Judge ruled that DADT is unConstitutional but the Obama Administration opposed this and wanted a stay put on the effect of this judicial review. It received a stay from an appellate court. We are told by the same Noisy People that "this was absolutely necessary!" because to strike down DADT would create chaos and panic in the military service branches, who have had no notice to get ready for integration of the armed forces.

Have you worked out what we're looking for? Correct - the answer is HYPOCRISY.

(I guess it would be more correct to say "the answer is logical inconsistency". But the embrace of logical inconsistencies, when they are motivated by partisan leanings, is by convention a species of hypocrisy)

[TheWraith]

1. The reason that the DOJ appealed is because they're required to.

It's the function of the DOJ is among other things to defend federal law, right or wrong. The arguments formed by their lawyers have nothing to do, really, with the actual motivation of their appeals.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Your statement is false. Please correct it.

They are not required to appeal anything.

They defended the law -as required- but they lost.

It is perfectly legal for the Dept. of Justice at that point to say: We have made a defense of the law; it was found not to be Constitutional.

Nothing more needs to be said or done to satisfy the law.

Examples of the Obama Dept of Justice declining to appeal adverse decisions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407137.html
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/014209.html
http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/071509a.asp

An article from a Veterans affairs website illustrating the fallacy of the "DOJ is REQUIRED to appeal argument".
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4463

Please correct your false statement.

[joeybee12]

3. You're wasting your time...simply pity that fool who knows nothing

and continues to show that he knows nothing.

[Q3JR4]

4. +1000

Q3JR4.

[davidinalameda]

5. keep on spreading those lies

maybe someone will actually believe them if you keep telling them long enough

[Smashcut]

8. Why do you hang out in GLBT?

It seems like your only purpose is to tell us why we deserve nothing.

[ThomCat]

9. I am sure that this is Exactly the purpose.

:(

We do seem to attract people who want to convince us that we really don't deserve our rights, and it's nobody's fault, just the way the law works.

Or we don't really deserve our rights, because it's just common sense.

Or we don't really deserve our rights, because we would be offending our straight "allies" by demanding too many of our rights to quickly.

With allies like these... x(

[QC]

16. I believe you have figured it out! n/t

[donco6]

17. Pretty much.

He's like Cerberus keeping the Dead in their place.

[MNBrewer]

12. Thanks for more of your misinformation, Wraith

WRONG.

[WillParkinson]

6. This is from my post in GD

Quote Of The Day - Ted Olson

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law. I don't know what is going through the administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell.' It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'" - Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson.

[wolfgirl]

7. An appeal of the actual ruling has NOT been lodged.

A STAY was requested on the action was filed. The DOJ has 60 days from the date of the ruling to file the appeal.
I suspect the DOJ will use the entire 60 days before making any decisions on an appeal - allowing Congress to reconvene and a second vote taken on the Defense bill that includes the amendment repealing DADT.

If that vote fails, an appeal may not be lodged - thus allowing the judge's ruling to stand. If the vote succeeds, then appeal would be moot.

(At least this is my positive guess at what may be happening at the DOJ!)

[Creideiki]

10. There's a small problem

If the ruling goes through, it will be a Republican-appointed judge who ruled on a lawsuit brought by the LCRs (the second most ineffective gay advocacy group in the history of Earth). That means that the Republicans will be crowing about how the gay community owes the Republicans our loyalty--after all we're all single-issue voters, right? So the ruling has to be appealed to at least get a Democrat-appointed judge involved so that the Democrats save face.

[struggle4progress]

11. Spot the disconnect: in September, every single Senate Rs voted to block DADT repeal

So now, ten days out from the midterms, DUers are loudly bashing Ds -- because, y'know, when Rs block a measure, then the only logical and moral thing we can do is pound Ds on the head with a big stick in the hope that Rs will take over the Senate so we can complain the Ds aren't succeeding and pound them on the head with a big stick some more

It's pure genius! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[MNBrewer]

13. You didn't read the OP, did you?

[bullwinkle428]

14. I guess you missed the part where Joe Biden told Rachel Maddow

that a "deal" had been worked with some Republicans, who would agree to support the DADT repeal when it hit the Senate floor?

What happened there?

[struggle4progress]

15. Here's the transcript. You can read what Biden actually said:

Biden/Maddow Transcript
September 15, 2010
~snip~
BIDEN: ... we should repeal it. I think everyone who was fired should be able to be reinstated if they wanted to ... I mean, here we have fired hundreds of translators, when we’re out there trying to figure out how under God’s name to find enough people to speak everything from Farsi to Urdu to-- I mean, this is absolutely mindless what we’re doing ...

MADDOW: ... So ... best-case scenario for repeal, would be sometime in the spring ... Why keep kicking people out now while all of this movement is happening towards ending the policy?

BIDEN: Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it ... I think we’ll get 55 vote, to flat repeal it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39215139

[donco6]

18. We've never looked to Rs for our salvation.

Why would we be surprised when they act true to form? Why would Dems act surprised either? Everyone knows those big votes are Kabuki theatre spectacles where the outcome is as certain as a WWE match. First, they decide whether they want it to pass. If not, then they don't bother with the Rs, but they meet with those "vulnerable" Dems in RW districts who need to save face. They let them vote no, but keep the vote close, so it looks like they really "Fought Hard." It's all bullshit. Anyone who has ever followed these votes knows that.