CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:44 PM
Original message |
Don't Ask, Don't Tell ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 08:45 PM by CatWoman
Rachel just reported :) found link: Judge declares U.S. military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy openly banning gay service members unconstitutional
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html
|
Matariki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. thought this place could use some |
stuntcat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
thank you, this is so smile-worthy :D
|
CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
Matariki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
stuntcat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
YAY for Sanity :))))))))))))
|
WillyT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Another Link (K & R !!!) |
CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
wmbrew0206
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:53 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The DOJ will appeal. Good news but this fight is a long way from over. |
FreeState
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Hopefully this will put a fire under Senator Reid's butt n/t |
wmbrew0206
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
18. To do what? The DOJ will appeal because the Obama admin wants to give the military |
|
a chance to phase out DADT on his orders, not a federal judges.
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
which is now sitting in the senate, it can't be done by an order
|
wmbrew0206
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
29. The senate is not going to take up anything that Obama doesn't want them to take up. |
|
The Obama admin has shown that they want this to be done on their schedule in conjunction with the military.
Don't you think that with a Dem house and senate with a Dem POTUS they could have ended DADT any time they wanted?
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
36. yeah , but they're chicken shit and are |
|
A BUNCH OF WIMPS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING it appears. I don't trust Obama , frankly. I'll believe when it happens. I believe they are waiting to see how they do come November. Ley them play politics with someone elses rights
|
wmbrew0206
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
37. It will be done during a lame duck session and will give Obama the authority |
|
to decide to end it when he determines it to be the best time. This will give Obama the political points to say he ended it and allow him to mollify the Pentagon as they will have time to prep for it.
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
I've been around a long time, we'll see
|
keepCAblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
51. At the cost of how many victims of DADT? Obama cares more about political posturing than the lives.. |
|
...of the men and women affected adversely by DADT.
|
rhett o rick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
34. Yes a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. nm |
wmbrew0206
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
38. Unfortuantely only according to one Federal judge. |
|
The DOJ will be instructed to appeal the decision until it is political expedient for the POTUS.
|
readmoreoften
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
55. And we will never be politically expedient for Obama. |
ZombieHorde
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |
democrank
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |
OmmmSweetOmmm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:05 PM
Response to Original message |
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
one_voice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
k&r
:bounce: :woohoo: :applause:
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:11 PM
Response to Original message |
CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:13 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Cue the Vonage theme, but--well, duh.
:woohoo: rocktivity
|
Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:18 PM
Response to Original message |
19. K & R Good news indeed! |
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message |
20. From a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans |
|
We have Republicans suing a Democratic administration to allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military.
The mind boggles.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. Does start to have that through the looking glass feel, doesn't it? nt |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
tnlefty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm off to bed, but if the mr. keeps me awake snoring I may catch Rachel on the replay!
And I hope that any challenges are shot down! :hi:
|
Luciferous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message |
25. K&R Nice to see some good news |
Odin2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message |
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:46 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Hell yeah! and let that dog lie. |
Nite Owl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
but what will the DOJ do now...
|
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 09:55 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:applause: :applause: :applause:
|
quakerboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:29 PM
Response to Original message |
32. What are the practical implications of this? |
Dr Morbius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
|
First, one must expect the issue to be taken to the appellate court.
That means the Obama administration is in a bit of a pickle. The left, ostensibly the President's base, wants DADT to go away, as in fact does a majority of the population. The President, an incrementalist, was operating on his own timeline for this. The Obama administration was in the middle of a long process of getting the military to decide for itself that the policy was stupid and needed to be changed, but now the district court ruling puts them in a situation: either adopt a new, workable policy immediately or appeal the judge's decision, thereby making the base howl. So either the President gives a gift to the right (red meat for the anti-gay crowd) by accepting the decision or alienates his base by appealing it.
The judge has done the President no favors by making this ruling less than two months before an election.
In terms of actual justice, the implications of this are all good. It forces the opponents of allowing gay Americans to serve openly to justify their policy, and since the policy is indefensible, the death knell of DADT has finally been sounded. Within a year, we may now be certain, the policy will be another sad page in our sordid history - as it should be.
A great ruling. Dubious timing.
|
Evasporque
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
54. Gay soldier dance parties!!!....obviously. |
quakerboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
57. Aside from the obvious |
|
Follow along with me here. Assume that Obama's Justice dept appeals all the way to the top, which seems likely enough. Assume that the case is fast tracked at each step, so that its dosnt drag along, which is probably far too optomistic. Say the SCOTUS holds this ruling, which is also probably drastically over optomistic.
Then what happens. What are the practical applications of this ruling, assuming it is upheld?
|
woo me with science
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:34 PM
Response to Original message |
Initech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Fuck off, eat shit and die!!! :woohoo: :toast:
|
Tsiyu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message |
40. A High Court with Justice for All uppermost in its decisons |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-09-10 11:03 PM by Tsiyu
Is what I hope this eventually means.
if so, Happy Day!
Edit to add: It's not over yet, but it's a step in the right direction
|
Dystopian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:23 PM
Response to Original message |
cleanhippie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I wonder if the Gov will appeal it?
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:55 PM
Response to Original message |
44. omfg. Does this mean an injunction will stop discharges? |
suffragette
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-09-10 11:58 PM
Response to Original message |
tavalon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 03:25 AM
Response to Original message |
46. Let's get this to the Supreme Court! |
|
Of course, it could be stopped with the single stroke of Obama's pen but we won't go there right now. Yay!!!!
|
tavalon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 03:26 AM
Response to Original message |
47. Let's get this to the Supreme Court! |
|
Of course, it could be stopped with the single stroke of Obama's pen but we won't go there right now. Yay!!!!
|
COLGATE4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
56. Be careful what you wish for - |
|
with today's USSCt I wouldn't feel overly comfortable with seeing what their ruling on the constitutionality of DADT might be.
|
pleah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message |
myrna minx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 09:10 AM
Response to Original message |
Scurrilous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 09:28 AM
Response to Original message |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message |
52. If Obama/CIC can keep this policy going....then they could resegregate the military!!! |
DeSwiss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-10-10 12:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It's unconstitutional and stupid.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message |