So a Judge Finally calls out DADT for it's Unconstitutionality

[walldude]

And without missing a beat the Obama Administration says it's all for gay rights, but it's going to have to "review" this.

Here's some of what the press is saying:

"President Obama has called the policy discriminatory and urged Congress to repeal it, but is defending it in court. The House voted for repeal in May, but a Republican-led filibuster has blocked a Senate vote."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-immediate-halt-to-dont-ask-dont-tell/

"Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed an objection to the proposed injunction, insisting that the judge’s decision be limited to the plaintiffs in the suit. The government argued that a wide injunction would “foreclose the US from litigating the constitutionality” of DADT in other cases and frustrate the ongoing Pentagon review of the policy. The Justice Department will now have 60 days to make a decision on whether or not to appeal the case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

I like this one. The administration would like this ruling to apply only to Log Cabin Republicans. Because they filed the suit. :crazy:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/12/dadt-federal-judge-ruling/

"Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler would say only that the department is "reviewing the ruling." The department has 60 days to appeal, but is not required to do so.
The Defense Department is reviewing the ruling to determine whether it has immediate impact and is consulting with the Justice Department, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/12/judge.dont.ask.order/index.html?hpt=T2

So there we have it. A Judge did what the Administration couldn't. And instead of just fucking coming out and supporting the Judges decision, we have requests that it only reply to Log Cabin Republicans and reviews of the decision from the Dept of Defense and the Justice Dept.

You know for the life of me I can't figure out what Dan Savage is so upset about.

[pinboy3niner]

1. The WH and DOJ need to hear from us LOUDLY and CLEARLY

Ask them not to defend DADT:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Sign the petition asking AG Holder NOT to defend DADT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9303802

[Starry Messenger]

2. Yup.

k & r

[msanthrope]

3. Do you understand WHY it should only apply to the LCR?

Because they didn't sue on behalf of all gay people in the military.

They only sued on behalf of themselves.

now, they could have sued on behalf of everyone else, but that would have been a tougher case for them.

In litigation, rulings tend to be limited to parties who are involved--that way, the rights of the other parties are not foreclosed on....

now, don't get me wrong--I want this ruling to stick. So let's hope that the Administration does what it did in the meat of the case---punted....

, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act's restrictions on speech are "no more than is reasonably necessary" to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion. (See supra Section IV(C)(1).) Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 250 Filed 10/12/10 Page 85 of 86 Page ID #:7701

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39202813/LCR-v-USA-Amended-Final-Memorandum-Opinion

[Clio the Leo]

4. here's my question....

... and lest anyone misunderstand me, this is a serious question, I'm not trying to defend anyone .... IF an executive order had been signed, if Congress had acted, WOULD this ruling have happened? Would there have been a need for this ruling? Would it have been as urgent?

My Masters studies were on the civil rights movement and I can NEVER read a story on this matter without thinking of this picture....




Unlike an executive order ... unlike a law passed by Congress, if a court decides it, it CANNOT be undone.

Of course, the obvious question, is if the intention all along was to let the courts decide, why not just SAY that?

The President will write his memoirs one day ... and this is one of the chapters I'm most looking forward to reading.

[msanthrope]

6. If repeal had happened, this case would have been mooted.

But repeal will NOT happen until at least, December. The report from Gates comes in then. And you need that report for repeal.

And you need REPEAL. That invokes more judicial deference than a ruling out of the 9th.

"Of course, the obvious question, is if the intention all along was to let the courts decide, why not just SAY that?"

Because you don't want a basis for appeal.

[CommonSensePLZ]

11. Supreme court decisions tend to be umbrella rulings

Which makes sense since they're supposed to interpret the laws and determine if they're legal in all states, look at Roe v. Wade.

[FreeState]

7. No - if an executive order was issued and congress had acted the case would be thrown out and not

ruled on at all. If they do not appeal the only way to re-enact DADT would be a constitutional amendment.

That is if Congress had acted and then the Military gave the go ahead with the repeal - the repeal thats being voted on hinges on the Military agreeing.

[msanthrope]

8. It's not that repeal hinges on the military agreeing---

It's that in the 90s, when DADT was drawn up, Congress inserted a 'finding' based on testimony from military officials, that gays were inimical to the order and discipline of the services.

When you repeal, you MUST address that finding---essentially by showing that the military has moved on, being gay doesn't affect unit cohesion. That's why you survey.

DADT is a fucked up statute.

[FreeState]

15. But why a new study - this has all been proven already?

Couldn't the bill that overturns it site the studies that have already been done that prove it does not harm unit cohesion etc? Seems like they are creating more work where it does not need to be done.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002240012#2

[msanthrope]

17. That's a great point--why not use other studies?

Because the original testimony came from the military--so the new study needs to come from there, too.

Also, because this is going to go in front of Fat Tony on SCOTUS, no study is going to be more persuasive than one done by the military, on the military.

This is playing for all the marbles.

[Mimosa]

9. ^ Clio, I LOVE THAT PHOTO! ^ n/t

[walldude]

12. Nope.. wrong.

If the ruling is it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL then it applies to all, not just the people who brought the suit. The ruling was that DADT is Unconstitutional. Are you now saying that it is ok to discriminate against gays because they aren't members of the LCR even though the ruling is that it is Unconstitutional to remove someone from the military for being openly gay? ?

[msanthrope]

18. Not okay to discriminate, just making the point that this case could

turn on a standing issue rather than a substantive due process one.

[CommonSensePLZ]

5. The log cabin republicans make me sick. nt

[Mimosa]

10. What about the Log Cabin Democrats?

We've got some here at D.U. who are very concerned about whether we LGBT people are fighting against our own interests and alienating them from supporting us. ;)

[walldude]

14. Yeah and they are out in force today...

I almost gave up and didn't post this for fear of getting the "Obama Bashing" label again. But damn, after reading that Dan Savage thread and some of the responses in there I went ahead and posted. It's hard to believe so many "liberals" have so little empathy for the GLBT community.

[CommonSensePLZ]

16. I hope you don't mean gay blue dogs! O lord ... u_u nt

[walldude]

13. Me too, but a broken clock is right twice a day

and they got this one right. Which is actually quite crazy. Republicans fighting for gay rights more than Democrats? WTF is up with that?

Oh and Welcome to DU :)