You know it's sad when the Log Cabin Republicans are doing more to end DADT than Dems are.

[MadHound]

"Judge Virginia A. Phillips, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, has permanently barred the Obama administration from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy nationwide, NPR's Carrie Johnson reports.

Phillips said it violates the fundamental rights of servicemen and servicewomen under the constitution."

<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/12/130518343/pentagon-must-suspend-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-investigations-federal-judge-says?ft=1&f=1001>

For an administration that is supposedly supportive of gay rights, it comes as a shock to the LGBT community that more hasn't been done for them. A vague promise of repealing DADT was not fulfilled , and now it is the Log Cabin Republicans who have come to the rescue.

Obama could have avoided this situation, and won the day, if he had simply issued an EO based on the stop-loss system, and ended DADT. But as Biden revealed a couple of weeks ago, the forebearance on issuing such an order was supposedly the price to be paid for bringing a repeal vote to the floor of Congress. Well, that bargain was never kept, and yet Obama still didn't move.

But other forces did continue moving without the need for the President's doing a thing. And yesterday, it was the Log Cabin Republicans who won the day, getting an injunction issued that puts a halt to DADT.

The question becomes whether or not the Obama administration will do the right thing, mainly letting this case stand and refuse to appeal it. We'll know in a few weeks, but in the meantime. Let's hope that they do the right thing.

[VMI Dem]

1. The President is a constitutional scholar. He has no choice but to appeal it.

:crazy:

[MadHound]

2. Yeah, I figure we'll see some sort of excuse along those lines,

Of course the truth is that neither he nor his DOJ is under any sort of obligation to appeal.

[VMI Dem]

4. He'll be breaking the law!

He has an obligation to defend every law, regardless of its constitutionality.

[BzaDem]

5. I think the issue is that he has an obligation to defend every law with a plausible defense under

CURRENT precedent. Note that does not say "precedent we wish were the case," it says "CURRENT precedent."

[MadHound]

7. Actually he is under no such obligation

Plenty of other of presidents have refused to appeal a case and let the rulings stand. There is no automatic, irrefutable rule that the DOJ must appeal such cases.

[VMI Dem]

8. Sshhh. Their world will explode if they can't spin this.

[BzaDem]

9. The 1980 OLC memo by Carter's attorney general analyzing this very issue binds the DOJ.

There are presidents who refuse to defend laws in the first place, but generally current precedent cuts against these laws.

For example, Bush obviously had deep constitutional doubts about McCain-Feingold. But his justice department defended it vigorously, and his defense won in court. In your world, campaign finance reform would have been dead the moment a lower court struck it down, even when the Supreme Court would have upheld it.

[MadHound]

13. Nice try, but there are numerous constitutional scholars that disagree with you

So hmm, who to believe? Those with actual knowledge, or some anonymous internet poster with an agenda to push?

I think I'll stick with the folks who know best on this one.

[BzaDem]

16. There are many Constitutional scholars that believe DADT is unconstitutional, and I agree with them

(though I do not claim to be a Constitutional scholar).

But that is not the question. The question is if there is any PLAUSIBLE argument under current precedent that the law could be sustained. And in that case, the government must lean HEAVILY towards defending the law.

This is a good thing for all laws that have any plausible defense under current doctrine (even if we think current doctrine is wrong). We do not WANT the President to be able to repeal laws by fiat. This would be extremely dangerous, and would expand the powers of the presidency to unprecedented levels and completely neuter Congress. Your world would have constitutional challenges to EVERY progressive law under the next President, in specially selected judicial districts, since they would all know the next Republican President would refuse to defend them or refuse to appeal adverse rulings.

[MadHound]

17. We're not talking about the president repealing laws by fiat

We're now talking about this administration simply refusing to appeal a court decision. He is under no way, either by precedent or by law, obligated to appeal this case up the line.

[BzaDem]

62. "We're not talking about the president repealing laws by fiat"

Yes, we are. If you give Presidents carte blanche authority to refuse to appeal adverse court decisions, you are giving Presidents authority to selectively enforce laws. All it takes is one ideological nut plaintiff and one ideological judge to challenge any law, and you would be happy to allow the President to subjectively decide whether or not to appeal. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

As I said above, campaign finance reform would have been dead in early 2003 under your vision of this extreme presidential power.

[MadHound]

66. Show me where in the Constitution that the president has to appeal adverse judgements

I know, I'll be waiting all day.

[BzaDem]

68. Are you reading my posts?

The Constitution does not allow the President to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. I.e, if President Palin takes power, she can't unilaterally stop Medicare checks. (I hope we can agree on that.)

Allowing the president to choose which laws to defend or not defend (or appeal/not appeal) based upon a subjective standard GIVES the President de facto power to subjectively pick and choose which laws he will enforce (as I described upthread). Nut plaintiff + nut judge + Republican President = selective, subjective enforcement.

Because the latter would be inconsistent with the former, the power you are in favor of articulated in the latter statement does not exist.

I can't think of a simpler way of putting it than that.

[MadHound]

70. So other presidents were wrong, the ones who refused to appeal other court cases?

Yeah, OK, whatever.

[BzaDem]

79. I said a President cannot subjectively refuse to defend laws.

Allowing subjective discretion in defending laws is impermissible because it can be used to subjective discretion in enforcing laws.

Using objective measures of a statutes' Constitutionality does not run into this problem, because it would not allow a President to refuse to defend a law (or enforce a law) just because he doesn't feel like it.

If the President uses the objective standard of "did the Supreme Court already rule this unconstitutional," or "is there Supreme Court precedent that likely invalidates this law," that is permissible. That standard is objective -- it depends only on what the Supreme Court (or circuit courts) have said, and NOT his own opinion.

For example, if the Supreme Court rules that a state law banning Miranda warnings violates the 5th amendment, and there was an equivalent federal law that was later challenged, the federal government would be completely within their rights in refusing to defend the statute, since the Supreme Court already ruled on the question. The DOJ would objectively look at case law and decide (not subjectively look at their own opinion and decide).

[MadHound]

86. The simple fact of the matter is that the President can, and should,

Refuse to appeal this case. Subjective or objective, it is within the president's prerogative to refuse to appeal. This has been done before and can be done again. It is that simple.

[BzaDem]

88. Under the objective standard, he can't refuse to appeal. Under a subjective standard, Palin could

unilaterally stop all Medicare checks. Interesting to hear that you would have no problem with this principle. Sounds like "the ends justify the means" to me.

[MadHound]

92. Quite simply, you don't know what the hell you're talking about,

And are trying to cover up that inconvenient fact with a lot of blather that doesn't mean a damn thing. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't want anybody else to get credit for ending DADT, and you are willing to play politics with people's lives in order to insure that happens. Have you no shame?

[BzaDem]

107. I mean, if you take the opposite of everything you just said, you might be on the right track.

As usual.

You think this is about "credit"? "Politics?" "Ensuring something happens" (where "something" remains unspecified)? Your post isn't even coherent.

This is about the rule of law, and whether we are going to let a unitary executive have the power to de facto repeal any law they don't like, without any consent from Congress.

[COLGATE4]

29. "Bush obviously had deep constitutional doubts..." Bwaaaaaaahh

aaaahhhaaaahhhaaa. Stop it - you're killing me! Bush never had a 'deep doubt' about anything in his spoiled, coddled life.

[BzaDem]

65. The point is most Republicans had deep constitutional doubts about the statute

(and certainly most of the people in his administration, including him). Yet they (successfully) defended the statute anyway.

[Touchdown]

100. And here they come. Regular as clockwork.

:crazy:

[QC]

101. An alarm goes off at headquarters whenever anyone types the word "gay." n/t

[aikoaiko]

20. edited: I missed the sarcasm.

But to those who believe what you said, my reply is:

There is reviewable discretion at every level of law enforcement. Applying the law is not so black and white.

[ZombieHorde]

109. Such as torture?

Torture gets a pass; gay civil rights don't?

[treestar]

52. You are flaunting ignorance of the law and the court system

and of government functioning. It may be some emotional payoff of a temporary nature. That's all.

[MadHound]

59. Really?

Gee, I'm citing the court case, experts in the field, and what are you bringing to the table? Oh, yeah, your own hot air, which quickly blows away.

[treestar]

64. The administration is defending a law as the DOJ traditionally does

You haven't cited a thing. There is no "cite" to avoid that tradition. And you'd let a Repuke administration do the same? Say no appeal when a lower court decides Gitmo is constitutional? And why are you afraid of the ruling of a higher court?

Suppose the court had decided that the law was constitutional and the DOJ didn't appeal it then?

[MadHound]

67. Are you listening to yourself?

It is a tradition, not a law, not a Constitutional mandate. Other presidents have let rulings stand without pursuing an appeal, Obama can do the same.

[treestar]

81. So why are you so terrified of this case going to a higher court?

And why should any case go to a higher court when you agree with its result?

Are you certain a higher court, which does have higher authority, will find this law fine and dandy? Why is that? You think the government has some very strong arguments in favor of constitutionality?

[MadHound]

90. No, I would like to see people's lives stop getting ruined as soon as possible,

Unlike the president, who wants to play politics with people's civil rights. What, don't you think that DADT should end, NOW. Or do you simply want Obama to get credit for it?

[treestar]

102. You did not answer the question

It would go to a higher court from some other court that finds it constitutional. So why are you afraid of it going to a higher court?

Obama would not get credit for it. The higher court would.

If the SCOTUS found it was unconstitutional, that would be the end of it. Your way, the question still exists as open in every other state/circuit.

[BzaDem]

3. The funny thing is, while you attempt sarcasm, your post is actually correct.

He could decide not to appeal it. He could also decide not to enforce laws he doesn't like. He could decide to dissolve Congress, enforce laws that don't exist, appoint judges without Senate confirmation, etc etc etc. Congress has no standing army to challenge him.

However, none of these things tends to be consistent with the idea that Congress passes laws, and the Executive enforces them whether or not it thinks they are repugnant. You would be outraged if President Sarah Palin refused to defend Medicare against a constitutional challenge in a right wing judicial district.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

58. Self-delete.

*

[joeybee12]

74. Yes, he does...

is this sarcasm or are you clueless about this?

[B Calm]

6. Why are you blaming democrats, when it's clear the Log Cabin

Republicans sole purpose after this victory is to bash and blame Obama.

Where are the Democratic Gay groups? Why haven't they fought this in the courts?

[MadHound]

12. Because this administration promised to repeal DADT,

And to move forward on LGBT issues. Instead, they've hemmed and hawed, courting the right (Rick Warren) and the center, but failing to do what they promised.

Meanwhile, the LCR moved on this issue because it is near and dear to their hearts, and frankly they haven't bashed the president over the head on this one, at least not that I've seen. In fact the LCR are trying to transition the 'Pugs to a new paradigm, since polling shows that the next generation of 'Pugs don't give a damn about homosexuality, and are trying to take the issue off the table period.

As far as where are the Democratic gay groups, well, I don't know. Perhaps they got lulled into believing that Obama was actually in their corner on this one. After all, he did promise to repeal DADT:shrug:

[BzaDem]

14. Now you are equating repealing a Congressional law through a Congressional act, (which Obama

supports), and repealing a Congressional law essentially by fiat.

[MadHound]

18. Now you are talking yourself in a vicious circle,

And failing to adequately express yourself in an intelligent manner. In other words, WTF are you talking about "fiat"? Is a court case now fiat law? Really, what are you talking about?

[B Calm]

15. What I heard was he couldn't legally do an EO on this.

But don't stop the Log Cabin bashing. . .

[MadHound]

19. Well, you heard wrong,

The president, since this involves issues of stop loss, which is within the CinC's purview, can issue an EO stopping DADT investigations dead in their tracks. But don't let facts confuse you.

As far as LCR bashing, really, what are you talking about. I'm not bashing the LCR's, I'm simply pointing out the irony of how the LCR's are doing more to stop DADT than the president.

[msanthrope]

23. Explain how stop-loss, which specifically excludes 'homosexuality', pregnancy, and other

states of being, can be used?

The Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network debunked the idea that an EO, via stop-loss would work.

What do you know that they don't?

"U.S. Department of the Army, Information Paper, Army Stop Loss/Stop Movement Program, March 11, 2004,
“Soldiers normally not subject to the Army Stop Loss/Stop Movement Program<:> Those soldiers in violation of the
Army’s homosexual conduct policy.”"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40782.pdf

That's the Congressional Research Service---

[MadHound]

27. Oh, I don't know, why don't you ask VP Biden about that.

Tell him that such an EO can't be issued. After all, he was very blunt in his interview with Rachel Maddow, stating that the president could issue such an EO, but it wasn't done because that was part of a deal to get the DADT repeal legislation to a vote.

<http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/watch-rachel-maddow-grills-vp-joe-biden-on-dont-ask-dont-tell.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+towleroad/feed+%28Towleroad+Daily++%23gay+news%29>

Nor do I suppose that you think that Senate majority leader knew what he was talking about when he called for the president to issue such an executive order

<http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1706373/senator_harry_reid_says_obama_should_sign_order_on_gay/index.html>

No, these folks aren't experts in politics or anything like that:eyes:

[msanthrope]

35. You haven't answered my question---

You wrote you wanted an EO issued under stop-loss.

1) Biden never mentions stop-loss. And Biden is correct--the President could try to EO it today--but it isn't going to pass judicial review. And you might want to read the Youngstown case to understand why.

2) Reid may want an EO, to save the Congress from heavy lifting. That doesn't mean it will survive judicial review.


Again, explain exactly how one issues a stop-loss EO?

It seems you are conflating many issues here.

[MadHound]

37. You aren't educating yourself on this.

Numerous scholars have stated that the president could issue such an EO, and it would survive judicial review on the basis of stop loss powers. It is that simple.

That you are willing to play politics with people's civil rights is downright disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[msanthrope]

44. Which scholars? The social science teachers at the Palm Center?

While the Palm report was interesting, it fell apart once the SLDN and other actual military experts pointed out that stop-loss excludes 'homosexuality'. That's just legal fact--not every legal theory is gonna work out.

It isn't a question of playing politics--it's figuring out how to remove bigotry, enshrined in law in a manner that will ascertain that it STAYS removed.

I don't support an EO of because of Youngstown and progeny. I also don't want President Palin issuing her own EO.

I do support a repeal by Congress, because that has the best shot of surviving Fat Tony and his crew of reactionary fucktards on SCOTUS....

**********

We have bigotry, enshrined in law in this country. I cannot tell you how, as an attorney and as a human being, how upset that makes me.

I cannot stand to watch the Constitution, which I love dearly, used in this way. Nor can I stand to watch the human cost of bigotry as discrimination continues.

You and I are working toward the same goal. We disagree about how to get there. I disagree with you, not because of political reasons, but because of LEGAL ones.

[MadHound]

46. So Biden and Reid, whom I linked to elsewhere in this thread, simply are talking out their ass, hmm?

You know, those two have got some crack constitutional scholars on their staffs, at the ready. I would trust them when they say it is doable. If you want to argue with them, you are free to do so, but the fact of the matter is that according to two of the top political operatives going, an EO halting DADT is more than possible.

So if legality isn't an issue, what are your issues? That if Obama can't get the credit, then nobody should? That's they way it is sounding to me.

[msanthrope]

54. Where do either Biden or Reid state and EO will survive judicial review?

The President could issue an EO today. Biden and Reid know that. Anybody who has taken basic civics knows that---but that only sets the stage for the court fight.

And it's the court fight we need to win---and you have a choice here--do you want a fight over Executive Power, or the power of Congress?

Executive Power--

1) If you try to use an EO, you run into Youngstown issues. Now, if you have not bothered to read the Youngstown case, you will not understand just how important it is---but Jackson's opinion on Executive power is pivotal. I'm giving you the wiki links because I can't give you my Lexis ones...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_&_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer


given the current SCOTUS, if you try to push the limits of Executive Power and override a statute of Congress via an EO, what do you think will happen? It won't be pretty. Why? Because, per Youngstown, the President is at the nadir of his power when he goes against the Acts of Congress. The admin will get no judicial deference. We will not just lose, but Fat Tony will delight in writing a smack-down of epic proportions.


2) If Congress repeals, and, specifically, investigates and repeals the findings*** of DADT--that gays are inimical to the service--then you invoke the greatest judicial deference. Although we have a conservative activist court (Morrison, Lopez) that tries to overturn laws of Congress it does not like, Fat Tony and the rest of the crew will have to contort themselves into pretzels on this one--and we will have Justice Kennedy, who can be persuaded to respect Congress.

***The reason DADT is such a pernicious statute? The finding that gays kill unit cohesion--thus you have the surveys, which are designed to demonstrate, give evidence, that the gays serving in the military do not affect unit cohesion.



Now, if Obama were cynical, he could issue an EO, and when the Republicans take of 15 minutes to walk to the DC Circuit and obtain a TRO, he could just throw up his hands, and say "Well, I tried."

I assure you--the 2nd method is very hard, and very long, and has the best chance. And Obama will get very little credit for an Act of Congress.

[MadHound]

63. Do you think that either Biden or Reid would bring up the possibility

If they knew that it couldn't work? Gee, apparently I have more faith in our leader's capacity for scholarly and logical thought than you do.

Oh, and Wiki, it isn't a suitable replacement for actual legal scholarly work.

[msanthrope]

73. Do I think either Biden or Reid are cynical enough to do so? Yes.

Do I think that Reid would rather have Obama take care of it, rather than have Senate hearings and a vote?

You bet your ass.


Do I think Joe Biden would tell Rachel Maddow what she wanted to hear? I'm old enough to remember him questioning Anita Hill--Joe isn't stupid, for all his 'gaffes.'


And as I stated, neither one of them talked about judicial review, did they?


As I explained, I gave you the wiki link because I cannot link you to Youngstown via my Lexis hookup. The wiki link has links to public databases of the actual case---or, try Justia.com. But you should actually read the case that informs this debate....and it doesn't matter if that's off wiki, justia, or whatever.

Read the case. (although, having read the wiki link, it is excellent for historical background.)

[MadHound]

76. Well, hey, I'll just leave it at that,

Because if what you're saying or speculating is true, then apparently the WH was simply playing politics with this issue and doesn't truly give a damn about civil rights.

[msanthrope]

78. What I'm saying is that Biden is correct--it's repeal. n/t

[MadHound]

85. What you're saying is that you think that a court ruling has less status, and less effectiveness

Than a legislative maneuver. The trouble is, there is no legislative remedy on the horizon given the timidity of this Congress and this administration. And if Dems suffer the expected losses in three weeks, well, nothing about civil rights will get through Congress.

Frankly I think that this should be celebrated for the progress on civil rights that it is. If the President refuses to appeal, which he can and should do, then we have achieved a victory, and that is what is most important.

[msanthrope]

87. When it comes to judicial deference, that's how the Framers decided it.

Judicial deference to the statutes of Congress is generally much greater than deference given to ruling--

Why? Because we are a representative government. The will of the people is expressed through elected reps--not judges.

I agree--the ruling is great. Repeal would be better....

You might try reading the opinion, BTW. Page 85 contains a tidbit you might like.

[MadHound]

94. By your logic then, Brown v. Board would still have little standing

Your legal knowledge is laughable, and your true agenda on this matter is becoming patently obvious. It simply comes down to this, you don't want anybody else to get credit for ending DADT besides Obama. You are willing to see anything through, including ruining hundreds of people's lives, denying civil rights to tens of thousands, just so long as Obama gets credit. You have no shame.

[RandomThoughts]

10. It is a great question.

The right thing is to repeal it now. The calculated political thing would be to wait till after election.


However that is a presumption and ends justify means thought.

Earlier I said it should not be an election issue, but not repealing it is for thoughts of election issues.


Throw caution to the wind, I say repeal DADT let the judges ruling stand, let the chips fall where they may.


I think the right thing is to repeal DADT, that is my opinion, however I could be wrong.



For Raina, Sworn bodyguard of the Seeker, feeder of the squirrels, and a lady that found love after much undue hardship. Repeal DADT I say.







Soldiers of D'Hara Salute you!!!!!!!!!
For Raina!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UTUSN]

11. Oh yeah, big rescuers, they.

Whoever it is who has worked against the broad interests of their home group ---whether it's Alberto GONZALEZ, Ruben NAVARRETTE, or Linda "CHAVEZ" being Rethugs against the majority of Hispanics or Clarence THOMAS, Condo RICE, and Colon POWELL doing it against African Americans or the Loggers-- it always comes down to one of those Eternal Questions: Why would *any* minority member EVER be a Rethug?!1 Anything they have done in this situation is ALL they have ever done for the home group and they have set it back every other step of the way.

[MadHound]

21. Actually it was this administration who wanted the judge's ruling to apply narrowly,

Only to the members of LCR. The judge saw and injustice and ruled broadly instead.

[msanthrope]

24. Because the LCR only sued on behalf of their own members.

Think about that--the LCR only sued on behalf of its own members, not on behalf of all gay people.

[MadHound]

30. Umm, most groups sue on the behalf of a single, or small group of inidviduals

I suppose that you think that since the Brown v BOE only involved a small group of students, it shouldn't have been applied to all students?

What's worse is that the Obama administration wanted the ruling to only apply to the the LCR's. Think about that.

[msanthrope]

33. No--there's a difference between suing on behalf of yourself and those similarly situated, and

on behalf of yourself.

The LCR chose the latter.

And of course the administration wants the ruling confined to parties...that's what is proper in litigation.

The next time the Westboro Baptist wins something, you want is applied to you?

[MadHound]

36. There are many members of the LCR who are soldiers,

The LCR were suing on behalf of these members, and those similarly situated. Perhaps you should read the actual case:shrug:

And why would the administration want civil rights to apply to a narrow group of people?

And yes, when WBC wins a free speech victory, as much as I loathe the group, I will be happy to see freedom of speech upheld.

[msanthrope]

49. No--that was the point of government's objection to injunction---

The LCR did not sue on behalf of those 'similarly situated.' (which is a legal term of art.)

They sued on behalf of their membership--which is why this is NOT an EP case.

The administration is like all lawyers--you want the parties in litigation to be affected by rulings, not 3rd parties who may not have had a chance to participate in the original case. Collateral estoppel.

What if the WBC wins an injunction in a federal district court in Tennessee that restricts the extention of benefits to gay couples? And what if they win that injunction by going into court, suing on behalf of themselves alone, and THEN, in remedy, insisting that the judge apply the ruling to all gay couples? And what if they find a winger judge to go along with it?

That's why standing is important.

[MadHound]

56. Sorry, but you're wrong,

They took this on as a test case, in fact it is mentioned in the court record that at least one of the plaintiffs effected was given an honorary membership in the LCR specifically to bring this case to court.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration who wanted this ruling to apply only to members of the LCR, not the wider public or the military as a whole.

<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=130531878&m=130530466>

[msanthrope]

60. You are confusing issues of associational standing and standing

via remedy.

What I was speaking of was the latter....there's two different standing issues in the case, and you are conflating the two of them.

I'm not going to get into the judge's Lujan problems.

[MadHound]

75. Wow, you are getting desperate to discredit this ruling

Lujan standing:rofl:

It's quite telling about you and others that you're putting politics ahead of civil rights. Have you no shame?

[msanthrope]

77. That tells me you haven't actually read the Judge's Opinion.....

Which might inform your debate on this thread.

Since, of course, the judge spent quite a lot of paper discussing standing under Lujan.

[MadHound]

84. What it tells me is that you are grasping for straws,

And using anything that comes to hand to try and discredit this ruling in LCR vs US.

[msanthrope]

89. Dude-you are the one who brought up Lujan--though, apparently, you didn't realize it.

Look.

Read the opinion.

I promise you will like what you find on page 85.

[MadHound]

93. I don't know what opinion you're reading,

But the opinion I'm reading mentions Lujan twice, once on page three, once on page four, both times in passing, both times with little significance on the case at hand.

[Dorian Gray]

22. I hope that they are successful

it's one good thing that they are doing.

[karynnj]

25. But, there are no log cabin Republicans in the Senate - they filibustered

the defense bill with repealing DADT in it. The Senate was the stumbling block - and NO Republican broke rank.

[Pirate Smile]

26. You wont stop their turning the Democrats into the villains and the Republicans into the heroes.

[karynnj]

28. I know - but I feel that we need to counter them in case there are

lurkers reading without knowledge of the long history of their negativity. There is a certain irony here that the Log Cabin Republicans initiated this - and a cynical part of me thinks it was with the tacit support of the party as a whole - to cause exactly the conversation the OP opens up among people favoring repeal.

[Pirate Smile]

34. I know. I tried yesterday.

[MadHound]

32. Not turning Republicans into heroes,

Simply expressing admiration towards the LCR's for standing up and fighting for civil rights while this administration dithers and makes political, not humane, calculations.

[Pirate Smile]

38. Right. Because it never takes political calculations to get shit passed through Congress.

[MadHound]

40. Ah yes, the poor Congress,

Where there are large majorities of Democrats who could stand up and fight for what is right, but instead take the coward's way out. The poor Congress, out of power even when they're in the majority.

As has the president, who, according to his VP, cut a deal with the devil, agreeing not to use an EO to suspend DADT in exchange for the repeal legislation getting to the Senate floor for a vote. We saw that fail spectacularly, but not a peep out of Obama about issuing an EO.

[Pirate Smile]

42. I think the deal was for after the study/survey crap was done but, hey, never let anything get

in the way of raging against the Democrats. I know you wont.

[MadHound]

43. I posted a link to the Biden interview upthread,

Go educate yourself so you know that they hell you're talking about.

[Pirate Smile]

47. I watched it. I know what he said.

I wont respond any more because there is no point. You can have the last word. Woo hoo!

[karynnj]

99. It failed because not a single Republican voted for it

My guess is that Reid could have had the cloture vote if he agreed to not try to get the Dream act as an amendment.

[MadHound]

103. And the 'Pugs are in the minority,

What ever happened to the Dems forcing a real, live, talk all night, pee in a bottle filibuster? You know, the kind where you can beat the 'Pugs over the head for their obstructionism on a issue that is favored by the vast majority of voters. Oh, yeah, it went the way of the Dem's spine.

[karynnj]

104. Senate rules changed since the anti civil rights filibusters

Not to mention, the reason it changed was because a filibuster of that type brought all real action in the senate to a halt. The fact is that the Republicans would likely gladly bring the Senat eto a stop - that is their goal. Would you really have wanted the Senate to not pass the small business bill - spending two weeks talkking non stop instead?

Think about it. The Democrats feel government should do things - the Republicans don't. Which side fairs better under rules where debate goes on forever?

[MadHound]

31. And that signifies what, exactly?

That the LCR's broke ranks with their party in order to fight for civil rights for all. Admirable.

What has this administration done to end DADT? Nothing.

[pipi_k]

39. Well, as a strategy, I think it works pretty well...

because it takes away the power of the Republicans to claim that Democrats are responsible for all sorts of "evil" things.


What better way to cause friction between two (sort of) allies than to stay out of the issue and let one of those parties be the one to do the dirty work and take the heat....

:evilgrin:

[MadHound]

41. Well, it would have been nice to see the president keep his word about repealing DADT

It would give the base something to get pumped up about, it's always nice to be on the right side of the issue. But Obama and the Dems have failed on all of this.

[pipi_k]

50. I can't argue with you there...

it WOULD have been nice to see this promise kept.

And maybe, in a roundabout way, it was.

None of us can ever know what goes on behind the scenes in DC. Who knows what sorts of deals get talked about in private meetings and back rooms? Maybe the Administration had more to do with it than we can ever know. Can anyone prove that it absolutely didn't?

What we see on the surface is only a tiny (perhaps misleading) peek into what goes on behind closed doors.


And really...does it matter how it happened? Can't people just be glad that it did? I think Obama and the Dems have faith that their base will be intelligent enough to see that getting what they want at the expense of the opposition is twice as good as getting what they want at their own expense.

[treestar]

45. This is a court decision; why do "log cabin Republicans" get credit for it?

Both sides were argued and the court decided. That is no credit to any Republican. The Republicans in Congress would have voted against or filibustered to a man anything you would want for gay people. Get your head on straight. Obama and the Democrats will do the most. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

[MadHound]

48. Umm, the LCR brought this case to court and fought for it.

What have Obama and the Dems done? Not a damn thing, except talk. Actions mean much more than words.

[treestar]

51. They brought this case to court?

Someone must have had a case. Anyone could argue the case.

It hardly matters who "brought" it to court. Any lawyer can argue any case. The court hears BOTH sides, before deciding and decides on the law.

If it was a good decision, credit whoever appointed the damn judge.

Geez, the lack of logic around here at times. Do you think the Republicans in Congress are really going to vote to repeal DOMA? Really? Log cabin or not?

[MadHound]

57. Gee, then why didn't some Democratic civil rights group bring this to court?

Got to give credit where credit is due.

And frankly I don't think that either 'Pugs or Dems are going to repeal DOMA. The actions on both sides of the aisle speak louder than the rhetoric.

[treestar]

61. Anyone could "bring it to court"

As long as there is an arguable case!

who cares who "brought it to court?" There has to be a plaintiff somewhere. Why not credit her/him too?

Geez, have you ever been in a courtroom? Do you even know what a court case consists of?

The irrational around here is incredible. Which Republican, log cabin or not, in Congress, is going to vote to repeal the DOMA?

[MadHound]

69. "Who cares who 'brought it to court?"

Yeah, that little fact is very politically inconvenient for the Dems, given their promise to end DADT.

Sadly, the question of who brought it to court is quite telling, and quite relevant. And it won't go away, especially if the Obama Justice Dept. appeals this.

[pipi_k]

55. Again, the strategy...

If the Republican Party itself had done away with DADT (which we know would happen as soon as Hell froze over), then Democrats would have every reason to be outraged that they themselves didn't do it.

If Obama and the Dems had been responsible, then that only gives the Repubs more ammunition to fling at them.

But the LCR....a third party (and I don't mean political Party). Are the Republicans actually going to bash them and risk losing lots of GLBT votes next month? Well, maybe they will. And maybe the results will be beneficial to Democrats.

It's all a huge mindgame, you know. Strategy...deals...backstabbing and every other unsavory thing imaginable. A gigantic mindfuck. That's politics. On both sides.

[hendo]

53. Yup, apparently the Log Cabin Republicans are more liberal

than many of the people in our own party, not to mention many of the people here.

[uponit7771]

71. Seriously?!?!! For REAL?! wow...

[MadHound]

72. Now that is truly a cogent and intelligent response

The truth hurts, hmm.

The fact that the politics of this injunction is more important to you than the actual issue of civil rights is telling, truly.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. Just wanted to say --

:applause: :toast:

I really don't know how you do it here most days.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

83. A repeal (albeit somewhat delayed) of DADT could've happened by act of Congress

a couple of weeks ago if REPUBLICANS hadn't prevented an UP-OR-DOWN vote but where were the Log Cabin Republicans when all that went down? Where were their public denunciations of John McCain, the apparent ringleader in that farce? Where was their intense lobbying of Senate Republicans to allow an up-or-down vote? Are they busy pressing for another vote on the Defense Authorization Bill? That would end all of this legal wrangling once and for all. :shrug:

[MadHound]

91. And where was the Democratic majority in the Senate?

Oh, yeah, cowering in a corner, unwilling to come out and fight, like they've been unwilling to do for the past ten years. With the large Senate majority the Dems could have forced a real, live filibuster on the issue, and beat the 'Pugs about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism in the face of an issue that most Americans agree with, repealing DADT. This would have been great for two reasons, it would have restored the civil rights of tens of thousands of people, and it would have played well in the election.

Instead, the Senate Dems once again showed their true color, yellow, and backed down.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

97. This isn't a debate about parlimentary tactics in the Senate

Your OP is about your contention that LCR appear to be doing more than the Democrats to end DADT, which I respectfully disagree with you on. LCR had a shiny golden opportunity to stand up to their own party on this vote and to lobby them against launching a filibuster and for letting the Defense Bill come up for a vote, which would've allowed a Congressional repeal of DADT (authorization) to be actually signed into law. I don't recall a rebuke or even mild denunciation of the Republicans by the LCR following their successful (at least for now) filibuster.

It seems strange to me that the Democrats are getting the blame for REPUBLICAN obstructionism of their efforts to actually REPEAL DADT in Congress while the LCR are somehow heralded as being heroes for their several-years-old litigation against DADT. :crazy: Something wrong with that picture IMHO.

[MadHound]

98. And again, the Dems could have fought that obstructionism, but they chose to keep their powder dry

The repeal of DADT was the perfect opportunity to show people that Dems fight for what is right. The majority of Americans want DADT repealed, and they could have forced a real, live filibuster. Instead, they folded, again, and went home. That's not Republican obstructionism, that's simply the lack of a Democratic spine.

Oh, and by pushing this through the court system, I imagine that there are more than a few 'Pugs who are unhappy with the LCR for opposing them on DADT.

And frankly, when it comes right down to it, results matter. The LCR have got a nice, new shiny injunction that will prevent thousands of lives from being ruined. What do the Dems have? Oh, yeah, that appeal to overturn the injunction:eyes:

[okieinpain]

95. you have to remember the last thing anyone wants to do right now

is seem like you're being mean to the military. I know people don't want to hear that but it's the truth, president obama has no choice but to let them go through the motion's of removing a bad policy.

[MadHound]

96. Umm, the vast majority of people want DADT removed,

And they aren't particularly picky about how it is ended, just so that it is ended.

There is no need to prolong this denial of basic civil rights, we don't need another two hundred plus quality, good soldiers hounded out of the military.

All Obama has to do is to refuse to appeal this injunction and that's it, DADT is done for.

[okieinpain]

111. wow, that's it huh! just wooosh and all of the stupid people that

are in the army will just go sure okie dokie.

[Bluebear]

108. 'president obama has no choice' - you make him sound very impotent. poor guy

[chowder66]

105. "We're not doomed! (On DoJ appeals of DADT/DOMA) "....

"Before we get into why these appeals are not bad things, it helps to understand the structure of the US judiciary. This is going to be simplified somewhat. There are several special-purpose courts that don't really follow the normal structure, but that don't matter for these kind of cases."

...."And, before we look at the cases, a word on executive orders. Yes, the President could issue an order instructing the military to cease enforcement of DADT. But that doesn't change the law. A later President could undue the executive order, for one thing. For another, it is plausible that someone could claim harm (a homophobic serviceman claiming damage to his morale, or whatever) due to the order and challenge its legality. The courts hate dealing with conflicts between the other branches (such as executive order versus law), and would probably declare it a "political question" and recommend that Congress fix it. Which they won't do, being Congress. Finally, if enforcement of DADT was in fact suspended, the courts might view that as evidence that no concrete and particularized harm was ongoing, and deny standing to people seeking to challenge the underlying law. And even ignoring those problems, there's no way to fix DOMA with an executive order at all."

more at link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/13/92357/007

It's worth the read.

[DailyGrind51]

106. LCRs really need to switch Part affiliation, the GOP has nothing but contempt for them.

[donna123]

110. I'm sorry but the log cabin repubs

can go **** themselves. How can they be gay and republican? These log cabin repubs should be denied all the rights other gay people get because they support the losers who deny gay people rights - homophobic republicans, half of whom are closet gays! It is unbelievable.