White House: 'Don't ask' will end soon

[cal04]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/124073-white-house-time-is-ticking-on-dont-ask-dont-tell


The White House said Wednesday that recent court decisions have demonstrated to Congress that the “Don't ask, don’t tell” law will soon end — it’s just a matter of how.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged the Justice Department is preparing to appeal a court’s decision against the law preventing gays from serving openly in the military, but said President Obama is still committed to ending the policy.

“This is a policy that is going to end,” Gibbs said. “It's not whether it's going to end. It's about the process.”

Gibbs said the pressure is on the Senate to change the law, but the president is still working with the Pentagon, which should conclude its review on ending the policy in December, to change the law if Congress won’t.

“The best way to end it is for the Senate to follow the lead of the House of Representatives,” Gibbs said. “But absent that, the president has set up a process to end this policy.”

[aquart]

1. Define "soon."

Because careers of valuable people are being destroyed while government dithers.

And Congress isn't about to do anything useful for anyone.

[cherokeeprogressive]

106. 24 Business Hours?

[Skinner]

2. Changing the law, through an act of Congress, is the gold standard.

That way it will not be possible for later administrations, or higher courts, to reinstate it. I still believe they will get a repeal through Congress before the end of this Congressional session.

If they don't, then I will expect the president to do it through other means.

[katandmoon]

4. On what basis do you actually believe that?

[Skinner]

10. Because President Obama, and everyone else in his administration, have said repeatedly...

...that they oppose the law and want it repealed. They know repealing it is the right thing to do.

To the more skeptical and/or cynical among us, here's another reason: They don't want to go into the 2012 presidential election without a major accomplishment on LGBT rights.

[LonePirate]

26. I respectfully disagree. Obama and his administration could barely care less about LGBT issues

He has not fought very hard for DADT given his refusal to end the discharges. He has not pushed for ENDA or repealing DOMA and he personally is against gay marriage. He would much rather run on a platform promising change than actually enacting that change. He can then tell LGBT citizens about the Republican boogeyman while begging LGBT citizens for more cash. He might actually start enacting some change once the LGBT money dries up.

[grantcart]

55. The fact is any other avenue can be challenged.

If the administration doesn't appeal this particular Federal decision it can be undone by another judge in another district.

The SC can undo the entire thing on simply the basis that it is a Congressional decision. In the past SCs have given Congress more jurisdiction on military rules than it does for other areas.

The only way to end DADT for certain is by passing a law that undoes the exiting law.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. No, actually the "gold standard" would be --

having the USSC overturn the law as unconstitutional. The Courts trump Congress. If the current Senate repeals it then it could be reinstated via a future Congress. The only way to settle this is via the court system.

[EFerrari]

13. But then there's no signing ceremony. n/t

[Skinner]

16. So, now the President is at fault...

...if he has a signing ceremony for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[EFerrari]

18. Well, he likely does want in on this before the election as you said up thread.

[Renew Deal]

34. Where did he say that?

I read both posts. He didn't say that.

[EFerrari]

37. Skinner pointed out that Obama probably wants a win in glbt issues

to take into the election in post #10.

[Renew Deal]

41. That's the 2012 election.

To the more skeptical and/or cynical among us, here's another reason: They don't want to go into the 2012 presidential election without a major accomplishment on LGBT rights.

And it works just as well before or after the 2010 election. I'm sure the misunderstanding is completely innocent.

[EFerrari]

43. Yes, that is the 2012 election. There was no misunderstanding

on my part.

[laughingliberal]

98. Reply to #10.

"They don't want to go into the 2012 presidential election without a major accomplishment on LGBT rights."

[Renew Deal]

33. The point is that Obama is doing nothing to end DADT

AND is a spotlight loving, credit seeking, attention whore that is only waiting for his moment. And conveniently, he's both at the same time.

[EFerrari]

40. You're a very bad mind reader.

The only thing I was weighing was the political benefit to the administration for this to go through Congress vs. the courts.

The childish insults are yours so please don't attribute them to me.

[Renew Deal]

42. It's not just you

It's down thread too. Obama deserves none of the credit for the repeal, and at the same time will do anything he can to get it repealed this year. It's the SOP for Obama "critics."

[EFerrari]

47. It isn't "just me", it isn't me at all, thanks. n/t

/typo

[Skinner]

15. I disagree.

Certainly, if the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the current court would do such a thing. Not saying they wouldn't -- but I am saying it's far from certain.

I actually think we have a better shot in the current US Senate than we do in the current US Supreme Court. And I believe that if Congress changed the law, I don't think it is likely that a later congress could muster the votes to go back. And the Supreme Court would not have the authority to re-instate a law that Congress repealed. The Court can strike down a law, but they can't really "strike up" a law.

[rocktivity]

101. So this appeal will eventually make the difference between DADT being dead

and being "dead and gone"?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[tavalon]

109. You described perfectly the part I'm not getting here

If the DOJ is filing on behalf of keeping DADT (apparently because they have to. I can't seem to confirm that in my research, albeit middle of the night and a little tipsy) and if the plan that Obama apparently has is that the DOJ will lose in the Supreme Court, thereby striking down DADT, well he's more of a betting man than I would have thought him to be. He seems more measured and more cautious than that. So, I'm left with the feeling that the plan is no plan and therefore no political fallout. No gain either, but no fallout. If that's the plan, and last I checked, none of us is psychic, it's a really timid and ultimately sucky plan.

Unfortunately, the last two years have shown us that this is a timid administration. So, is this four dimensional chess with an incredibly gutsy gamble on the part of Obama or another dodge of confrontation?

[Renew Deal]

31. Congress would have to "reinstate" another law.

No solution is ever truly permanent, but I'd prefer it be repealed. Do you trust the Supreme Court to overturn this law? I don't.

[MineralMan]

88. I certainly don't think the current SCOTUS would overturn it.

It's just not in their nature. Repeal in Congress is the best that can happen at this point. I believe that President Obama feels the same, and wants to go that way. The DOJ, however, may only do a half-hearted or token appeal of this ruling.

[sandnsea]

104. Which is exactly what Obama is getting done n/t

[tavalon]

107. So the DOJ is fighting for DADT

so that it can make it to the Supreme Court and in that hallowed court, have it struck down, once and for all? I'm not saying it can't work but damn that is one multifaceted, reliant on many twists and turns kind of strategy. And this part of the game, where the DOJ files to keep DADT is going to (in fact is) piss a hell of a lot of people off. They better hope that Congress acts or the courts go faster than the courts usually do.

And frankly, I think where imagining a place where unicorns shit candy if we really think the DOJ is filing to keep DADT to get rid of DADT.

[ruggerson]

11. If the President declines to appeal Judge Phillips' ruling

it has the same effect as Congressional repeal.

The law would be dead.

In both cases, a future Congress and President could reinstate it.

[Skinner]

19. Not quite the same.

The law would still be on the books.

As everyone knows, I want to see DADT repealed. But I must admit that I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of the Justice Department not defending laws that were passed by Congress. Sure, the result would probably be fine when we're in power. But I don't really think future GOP administrations should be able to just sit by and do nothing when the laws *we* support are challenged in court.

[ruggerson]

21. My understanding

is when a Federal Judge strikes down a statute on constitutional grounds, and it is not appealed, it is just as dead as if repealed by a legislature.

I think the yardstick that past administrations used is that they would defend every statute, unless one is found unconstitutional. In that case, they have acknowledged leeway not to appeal it.

One way out of this is for the President to halt discharges immediately, because he has been ordered to do so by a federal judge, and then continue to pursue Congressional repeal, which could happen in the lameduck session.

[Skinner]

24. It is dead, yes.

I am no constitutional scholar. But I think if the law remains on the books, there remains the chance that it could get reinstated by the Supreme Court.

I guess the question is whether anyone besides the Justice Department would have the standing to appeal the decision to a higher court. I do not know the answer. Perhaps a DU lawyer with knowledge of these issues could step in and let us know.

[grantcart]

60. Also not a scholar but a decision by a single Federal Judge could be undone

by a contradictory ruling by another Judge in another federal district. There is nothing compelling one judge to follow a new precedent that hasn't had appellate review.

[grantcart]

57. Not true

All that would be required is for another judge in another federal district to give an opposing decision.

Obviously then it would be fast tracked to the SC because it would be chaotic.

[ruggerson]

97. But who would have standing to appeal?

If the administration does not appeal, no one else has standing. Judge Phillips' decision then is the law of the land.

[grantcart]

96. This article, originally posted at Daily Kos explains why it is important to

appeal a lower Judge's decision:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9310565

[Hekate]

95. TY Skinner, for your contributions to this discussion. Hope to see more of you ongoingly.

:hi:

[katandmoon]

3. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it will.

[disillusioned73]

5. It's official...

this administration is a glutton for punishment..

"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged the Justice Department is preparing to appeal a court’s decision against the law preventing gays from serving openly in the military"

All you have to do is.......... wait for it......... NOTHING, WTF :banghead:

[kevinbgoode]

6. Just end the damned policy, Mr. President

and stop using the lives of innocent gay citizens as a political football because you are so damned concerned about "process." It is a continuing outrage that this President - and this Congress, continues to devalue the lives of 30 million American citizens with such abandon. . .and that has to be finished.

The court ruled. This endless stream of "studies" and lack of a push by the White House only serves to ruin additional lives while the bureaucrats - and the sexually obsessed Party of NO - continue to put their political ideologies above the rights of American citizens.

Get rid of the policy NOW.

[Dawgs]

20. "Get rid of the policy NOW."

Uh, the policy is a LAW. No President can just "get rid of the policy" at any time.

[ruggerson]

22. the "law" has been struck down as unconstitutional

the President can comply with the Court's ruling.

[closeupready]

30. But why, when lofty words will suffice for so many fools?

??

[tavalon]

110. But this sort of not doing anything and just waiting to see how the process

goes worked out so well for the Healthcare debacle, I mean debate, why wouldn't it work here?

We had a firebrand of a candidate who has turned into a timid President. It saddens me.

[arcane1]

7. Wait... what???

Didn't "recent court decisions" declare the law unconstitutional, and thereby END it?? WTF is there to appeal?

How can an act of Congress be more sturdy and un-repealable than "recent court decisions" have been??

[kenny blankenship]

9. Did they say whether they intend to help with that ?

[BeFree]

12. heh

The rightwingers in the military hate Obama already. They have weapons.

They are a hornets nest and you want Obama to walk in there half-naked and whack the hornets nest again and again?

Get real. Please. Push like crazy on the courts. Leave Obama out of this mess.

[Scurrilous]

14. Good news.

K & R :thumbsup:

[theHandpuppet]

17. "News" is not the promise that something will happen, someday

I will applaud when there is actual news to celebrate.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Gibbs says it is abou the 'process'

when it is about the people. Human beings fired for existing and daring to serve. He's a real wordsmith that Gibbs.

[Zenlitened]

25. But only Congress can end DADT, right?

That's what the Professional Denialists keep saying, right here on th' DU. Maybe they ought to let the White House and Pentagon know.

[closeupready]

27. Great! After that happens, I can start giving the DNC money again.

So please do let me know when it happens. K?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. "There'll be pie in the sky..when you die." Tom Hill

[MadHound]

29. Mr. President, DADT can end tomorrow if you would simply comply with the Federal Court decision

But then again, you wouldn't be able to take credit then. A shame when a president puts politics over people's civil rights.

[Renew Deal]

32. You really believe this is all about Obama taking credit?

Just two days ago people were whining about Obama doing nothing. Now the criticism is Obama wants the spotlight. That's priceless.

Besides, why shouldn't he get the credit he deserves?

[LonePirate]

35. He does not deserve any credit but I believe he wants to take some

There are dozens of Dems in Congress who are far more gay friendly than Obama. They should receive credit and not Obama who seems to inch closer to the bigoted right wing with each passing day that he dithers on this and other LGBT issues.

[Renew Deal]

38. Who said this?

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do,"

Here's a hint. The person that said that will likely preside over the repeal and it will be ANOTHER promess kept on LGBT issues.

[MadHound]

39. Yes, he desperately wants the credit,

If for no other reason that pure political purposes.

And frankly, what credit does he deserve? He has refused to use his signature to end DADT, he has used his DOJ to do battle against both DOMA and now DADT cases, the one attempt made to repeal DADT in the Senate fell flat because, once again, the Dems refuse to fight.

End DADT NOW, not tomorrow, not next year. Stop playing politics with civil rights and people's lives.

[Renew Deal]

45. "the dems"

Dictator Obama should just issue a decree. A decree that can be reversed by the next president. Obama promised to get this done this year and it's going to happen. The only ones playing politics are the "critics."

[MadHound]

49. So, don't appeal the ruling,

Comply with the injunction and DADT is dead. Simple, easy, no fuss or muss. No decree needed.

[Renew Deal]

54. If some judge decides bias crime laws are unconstitutional....

Do you want president Jeb to appeal the ruling?

[MadHound]

61. Bias crime laws have already withstood court tests

Meanwhile, hundreds of good soldiers are having their lives ruined. Do you truly want to continue playing politics with their lives?

[Renew Deal]

63. So far

It doesn't mean that they will withstand the courts in the future. Make up any scenario you want. You don't want some crank republican president deciding which laws to defend. This law will be changed while Obama is president, likely this year through congress. It's you and many other so called "critics" that are playing politics.

[MadHound]

67. Oh, really? Just how likely is it to be passed this year?

Not very, considering that the Dems showed that they weren't up for the fight in September. Not very, considering that the Dems will probably lose one if not both houses in Congress. If that happens, the 'Pugs will simply stall out the lameduck session. If that happens, you're not going to see DADT get repealed for another fifteen years or more.

There is a perfectly legit, sound, Constitutional way for DADT to be repealed, comply with the injunction. The court has ruled.

Anything else is simply playing politics with people's lives. What, you want to continue to see two, three, four hundred good soldiers have their lives and careers ruined, year in, year out? Have you no shame? End the madness now, comply with the injunction.

[SeattleGirl]

46. Obama cannot end DATA, DOMA or any other law just because

people want him to. These are LAWS, passed by Congress, so it is Congress that needs to end them.

Why are some people so hell-bent on blaming Obama and only Obama for this? Where is the anger at Congress? Where is the action directed at them? Obama is no King, and he is not a dictator, and I don't want to live in a country run by either. I had enough of that under Bush. Just because we may favor a particular thing doesn't make it right if it's done or undone in the way a King or dictator might do. We are a country of laws, and while some of those laws suck and SHOULD be undone, I don't want to go back to the era of Bush to get that accomplished.

[MadHound]

52. But right now, Obama can end DADT,

All he has to do is let the injunction stand. Period, he doesn't have to lift a finger and DADT is dead. Oh, and it's perfectly legal and Constitutional as well.

[SeattleGirl]

64. Doesn't the DOJ have an obligation to defend the laws on

the books? I'm not saying I agree in this case, but is that not their obligation?

[MadHound]

68. Not any sort of legally binding or constitutional obligation, no

Other presidents have let rulings stand without appealing them, Obama could do the same.

[Spazito]

69. Let me see if I get what you are saying...

President Obama should do what bush did and interfere with the independence and responsibilities of the DOJ, interference which, btw, when done by bush, was condemned by DUers in unity and rightly so? If this is not what you are saying, please clarify how the President can "let the injunction stand" without interfering and breaching the independence of the DOJ.

If the President, whoever it is, can direct the DOJ to ignore their responsibility to defend legal bills, passed by Congress, in the courts because the President doesn't like or support said bill then those who want to see this occur in this instance, DODT and DOMA, would have no problem if a Republican President did the same to bills that are supported by the left and challenged in court by some rabid right wing organization and ruled 'unconstitutional' by some right wing federal judge (we all know they exist).

[MadHound]

75. Wow, nice way to try to twist what I'm saying, and twist what the DOJ does

The DOJ is not some completely separate entity from the Executive Branch. Presidents can, and do, direct their AG on what to do, or not do. Probably the most famous example of this sort of relationship was the Kennedy brothers when they went after the Mob.

A president can, legally and constitutionally, direct his AG not to pursue an appeal, it has been done many times before.

The more we wait, the more people's lives are ruined. Is that what you want?

[Renew Deal]

80. The AG and president are supposed to be separate

And the Kennedy brothers is a controversial example. People believed the presidents brother being AG was inappropriate. I think it's since been outlawed.

[MadHound]

84. No, they're not,

And frankly if you show me anywhere in the Constitution where it says so, I would give you a large sum of money.

They didn't object to Robert working closely with John because one was AG and one was President, they simply didn't like the fact that it was two brothers working together, and no, neither point, working closely with your AG or having your brother in your cabinet has been outlawed.

The DOJ is not a separate entity all on it's own, it comes under the Executive branch. And like anything else the president controls, he can set the agenda for the DOJ. Kennedy sicced his DOJ on the Mob, LBJ, civil rights in the South, Nixon, his own personal enemies list, Reagan, drugs, etc. etc.

Geez people, this is stuff within our lifetime, it ain't that tough to figure out.

[Spazito]

86. Please provide the legal case where it states the President has the right....

to direct his AG not to pursue an appeal. I have seen nothing but opinions stating this as yet.

"The more we wait, the more people's lives are ruined. Is that what you want?" What I want is DADT to be permanantly repealed so NO succeeding republican President or Congress can change it back due to a change in Administration and the only way that is going to happen is by an ACT of Congress. I think THAT will ensure those people's lives can no longer be "ruined" on a whim, an EO or inappropriate Presidential interference in the independence of the DOJ. I am surprised you don't want that as well.

[MadHound]

87. Go read your history of the Kennedy's

Educate yourself. What I'm stating is not opinion, it is fact. It has been done before, and will be done again. You are simply trying to make up excuse after excuse for Obama's failure to repeal DADT.

And if Obama does not pursue an appeal, DADT will be permanently repealed. In fact, since it has been declared unconstitutional, it would be more effective than a piece of legislation, since our court system is the final arbiter of the law. We could pass a law repealing DADT, but a 'Pug Congress and president could pass another law re-instating it. Having it declared unconstitutional means that any such future attempt to re-instate DADT will have to pass the constitutional bar set by this ruling.

Excuses, excuses.

[Spazito]

93. No actual provision proving the President has the right to dictate to the DOJ...

I am disappointed but not surprised.

[treestar]

91. Answer the question; do you want Republicans to have the same powers?

The Republican DOJ to fail to defend any law the Repuke President does not like?

[MadHound]

92. It is in the Constitution,

It has been used by both 'Pugs and Dems before.

Next time, try reading up on your history.

[EFerrari]

56. Obama gets attention on this issue because he asked for attention.

People are asking him to follow through which is perfectly reasonable.

[Renew Deal]

62. And if he does follow through, to not take credit.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

65. What? That doesn't even make sense. n/t

[Renew Deal]

71. You want Obama to "follow through" on the repeal, but not to take any of the credit for ending DADT.

[EFerrari]

73. As I said, you are a very bad mind reader. n/t

[Renew Deal]

78. Right

Your questionable intentions should not be questioned.

[EFerrari]

79. Attacking intentions that you attribute to me is ridiculous but be my guest. n/t

[SeattleGirl]

66. So, are you saying that attention is what he wants?

Are you saying that that is the only thing that matters to him?

[AtomicKitten]

70. The real point here is that he will be given ZERO credit for initiating this.

He never was able to do it single-handedly. Barney Frank on Countdown last night said there is gross misunderstanding of repeal of DADT in that this is a statute that Pres Obama cannot simply disregard/ignore.

Pres Obama will continue to be vilified by some here regardless of what happens with DADT. That much is clear.

* edited because apparently "gizen" isn't a real word

[Renew Deal]

72. Barney Frank is a known homophobe.

:silly:

[AtomicKitten]

76. Apparently.

:silly:

[EFerrari]

77. People started working on the repeal of DADT the day it was signed.

And since none of them were President Obama, it's a little silly to say he initiated it.

[AtomicKitten]

82. His pledge in the SOTU started the ball rolling in earnest.

No worries. I doubt there is any expectation here that he will be given even an iota of credit much less a thank-you. That much is clear.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/gays-applaud-obama-pledge-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy-state-of-the-union/story?id=9687078

* edited for crappy link

[EFerrari]

85. Okay. n/t

[EFerrari]

74. No. If I was saying that, I would have said that.

You asked why Obama gets attention and I responded to your question.

[treestar]

90. Or the process sucks and takes a long time

It's a price we pay for having the rule of law.

It seems here that Obama is trying to use the best process possible.

[treestar]

89. Still being ignorant, and refusing to get the fact

that one circuit decision does not put an end to anything.

[MadHound]

113. No, the actual injunction is what can put an end to DADT

But you don't want to see that, because if that is how DADT ends, your god doesn't get the credit.

[donco6]

36. Golly, wonder what that process could be - "absent the Senate vote."

I don't suppose he could actually issue the EO like so many here have insisted he cannot do. Hmmm . . . .

[EFerrari]

44. What I don't understand is, why was Arnold able to refuse to defend H8

in CA courts but Obama isn't able to refuse to defend DADT? I genuinely don't understand that.

[Renew Deal]

48. This is why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9308776&mesg_id=9309043

[EFerrari]

51. The courts have already ruled this disgusting policy is unconstitutional.

DADT is obviously unconstitutional.

There is no good faith defending of a discriminatory law, sorry.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. I guess our California Justice Dept and law are some magical --

things that bears no resemblance in anyway to the Fed. :shrug: :eyes:

I still think this is about cowardice -- they fear giving the GOPers/baggers more gay amnmo before an election. :puke:

[donco6]

53. Yes, isn't that interesting.

Guess it's because Ahnold isn't "a constitutional scholar."

[EFerrari]

81. There may be a reason. I just have never heard one. n/t

[Erose999]

58. Yeah Gibbo, lets end DADT in December... when we have a GOP Senate and probably a GOP House too. I'm

sure they will follow whatever method for getting rid of DADT you guys come up with.

[Renew Deal]

59. There will not be a GOP House and Senate in December.

[Erose999]

112. Well I guess they'll be officially sworn in in January. But you get my point. They need to act on

this ASAP, lest the GOOP regain control before anything meaningful is done.

[Prism]

83. I love the passive voice

And that's all this administration has on LGBT progress - a passive voice.

DADT will end soon, like a bolt of lightning from the sky. You know, it'll just happen.

Forget the horrible "compromise" foisted on Congress by the White House. Forget that the White House did nearly no lobbying whatsoever (and certainly no arm-twisting) when the repeal was in front of the Senate. Forget the foot-dragging, and the excuses, and the no doubt ardent prayers in the White House that some court somewhere will take the matter off their hands so they don't have to expend the slightest political capital on it.

DADT will end soon!

Thank you, Barack "Bare Minimum" Obama. This is going to be like the hate crimes law. He'll show up after everyone else has dragged his ass there, and then we'll be told he practically saw it through single-handedly.

Good gravy. Half this man's life is turning out to be a massive celebration simply because he showed up by the end of the party.

I think he should send out another person from the administration to piss all over our dead like Valerie did this week. You know, just to drive the point home. Because we're not feeling the "attention" enough.

[Catherina]

94. No credit to the White House on this one. They're not leading at all

but will be sure to jump up front when it's all a done deal and take full credit. Then we'll be deluged with hundreds of inane picture threads and revisionist stories about the fierce advocacy that ended in great photo ops.

Unimpressed.

[BlueIris]

99. +1,000.

It's the void of leadership here that offends me the most.

[metapunditedgy]

100. Remember: 75% of the BP oil spill is now gone from the Gulf, largely thanks to

government activities.

That pretty much follows the plan you describe for DADT.

[CreekDog]

102. This isn't my chosen approach --I feel no need or desire to defend it

The White House can defend itself.

If they want to say nice things about the community being discriminated against while appealing rulings to grant them civil rights, I won't be posting in support of that.

They and others may feel that they are doing the right thing. I do not.

They can make the rather nonobvious case for that.

Just because I'm in the same party doesn't mean that I need to.

I fight enough losing battles as it is, I don't need to start fighting in favor of things I don't even like, do I?

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

103. This was informative.

Thanks for a reminder of what's actually happening as opposed to the outraged portrayals of what's happening.

[tavalon]

111. I'm still not getting it

So I'm not outraged as of yet, just really, really confused.

If the DOJ is filing on behalf of the Obama administration to continue DADT so that it can go to the SCOTUS and by decided one way or the other there, then I'm pissed, because it's completely lacking in morality or strength of character and it's a gamble I don't think we should be taking with the careers of our gay soldiers.

But I'm really unsure if that's what's going on. Is that what's going on?

[tavalon]

105. Okay, let me see if I've got this straight

The administration is appealing the decision to end DADT (thereby making them ipso facto for DADT) because they want it to end in some nebulous right way, not be virtue of any strength of conviction or character but by some policy wonkiness that makes most of us look like, we're, well, not policy wonks? So they are trying to stop the ending of this policy to end this policy. Right?

Good thing I'm fairly drunk, because I think this could make my head explode.

[cherokeeprogressive]

108. LOLOL "This a policy that is going to end"

He cannot be anything but correct. It doesn't matter that it won't end until sometime in the middle of the century and he knows that. It's like saying "that tree will fall someday"; Simple fucking doublespeak.

"the president has set up a process"? Pray tell, what IS that process that Our Beloved President has set up? Can you tell me? Specifically? Or am I an asshole for even asking?

Look, the ONLY acceptable outcome is for DADT to go away. SOON. Like, before 11/2012. Otherwise, I can't guarantee he'll be asked to stay.

If it's not ended by 11/2012, I will consider myself as having been lied to in order to garner my vote.

'Nuff said?

[CreekDog]

114. Looks like walking down the up escalator

:shrug: