President Obama is Wrong, the Republicans are Right

[Better Believe It]

Obama is Wrong, the Republicans are Right
By John Nichols
October 16, 2010


The Obama administration's Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the world-wide injunction against enforcment of the noxious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Though the president may personally object to the discriminatory strategies that have been used to hound thousands of gay and lesbian service members from the military, his administration is mounting its legal defense.

There have been lots of objections. But the loudest complaints are coming from Republicans. Not, unfortunately, all Republicans. But the Log Cabin Republicans -- the gay and lesbian group that secured the injunction from a federal judge -- are mounting the defense of the injunction.

"At the same time the Pentagon was complying with the injunction against enforcing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' President Obama's attorneys were making the argument that compliance would be impossible," says Christian Berle, a leader of the group. "Log Cabin Republicans believes that the Department of Justice is severely underestimating the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. The United States military is the most powerful, most adaptable armed force in the world. It has dealt with racial integration and greatly expanded opportunities for women, and has grown stronger because of it. Open service for gay and lesbian Americans will be no different. Granting this stay would perpetuate a grave injustice against servicemembers whose only desire is to defend our country honorably and honestly."

Read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/155420/obama-wrong-republicans-are-right


--------------------------------------------


Weekend Edition
October 15 - 17, 2010

Obama Stiffs Gays in Military Again
Don't Act, Don't Lead
By DAVE LINDORFF

Candidate Barack Obama, running for president, vowed to end the ludicrous Pentagon policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which, since it was established in 1993 by President Clinton has required gay and lesbian members of the uniformed services to hide their sexual orientation or be drummed out of the service.

But now that a federal judge has ruled the policy to be unconstitutional, and has more recently issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing it, the president has responded not by deciding to let the court order stand, thus ending this particular form of discrimination against gays and lesbians, but rather by appealing the decision in an attempt to reverse it.

This is a case of the President/Commander-in-Chief following his own pathetic political policy of “Don’t Act, Don’t Lead.”

Cowed by opposition from his own Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who wants time to “study” the issue of elimiinating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and from his generals, many of whom are opposed outright to gays in the military, Obama has kicked the can down the road yet again.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10152010.html

[xchrom]

1. Gee - I wonder who would have unrec'd this? Nt

[ProSense]

7. I did

because David Lindorff is an asshole and CounterPuke often promotes distortions.

Also, the Log Cabin Republicans don't seem to mind giving Congressional Republicans a pass:

Gay GOP group gives Cornyn award after 'no' vote to move on DADT repeal


Roll Call

[MineralMan]

22. I unrecced it, too. It's just another anti-Obama screed.

A misleading title, too, even if it is the orginal title. Unreccing threads is an option here on DU. People do it for many reasons. You now have mine.

[Mimosa]

48. The 'gays stop yer whining group' have kept a perfectly good article down to 0

What does this tell us?

When push comes to shove the personality cultists have thrown us under the bus and will back up and run us over to stop those annoying screams.

[laughingliberal]

57. +1000 nt

[readmoreoften]

60. +100000

[joe black]

63. Those two...

Have single handedly run off many good Democrats here on the board and will keep many from voting because people in general don't care for crap rammed down their throats.

[SidDithers]

54. Me too...

just 'cause I can.

Sid

[jefferson_dem]

56. I did.

The headline sucks. Nichols is full of shit. Counterpunch is a dirty rag.

Otherwise...

[maryf]

2. It's only a matter of time...

as a teacher of high school kids, I've seen a radical shift in 20 years, they just don't care if others are gay, for the most part...K&R by the way...

[emulatorloo]

3. If only the Senate Log Cabin Republicans would have voted for Cloture the other day on DADT repeal

[renegade000]

5. Oh come now, you're trying to hold republicans to the same standard

That's just not how it's done by anyone these days.

[Better Believe It]

10. So who are the Senate Republicans that are members of the Log Cabin group?

While their are Republican gay Senators I was unware that any of them are members of the Log Cabin Republicans group.

That might be also be news to the Log Cabin organization!

So who are they?

Thanks for your help.

Oh .... please don't bring up the old, lame and tired phantom procedural filibuster excuse for inaction.

The Senate only needs to use Senate Rule 22 or the constitutional option to defeat or stop Republican real "filibusters".

Enough of that nonsense already!

If Republicans regain control of the Senate and White House they won't permit Democrats to engage in "procedural" filibusters to block legislation or Presidential appointments they really want.

Remember what Republicans did in 2005 when the Democrats agreed to give up procedural filibusters against Bush's Supreme Court appointments?

[emulatorloo]

14. It was more like wishful thinking - I wish there had been some Republicans who would have voted for

cloture. Sadly there aren't any Log Cabin Republicans in the Senate.

[Better Believe It]

19. I think you're right on that.

[donco6]

4. Pretty sad, isn't it?

Being a Democrat on the wrong side of history really sucks.

[elleng]

6. NOT seeking to overturn; they got it wrong, seeking to make it FIRM.

Complex legal system leaves too much room for misunderstandings, imo.

[Proud_Lefty]

9. Thanks for clarifying that, Elleng

I just knew I was missing something here.

[elleng]

15. YVW, Lefty. Stray Cat, at #8, got it too.

[ruggerson]

34. Maybe you can answer the question I asked Stray Cat

it doesn't seem to have an answer.

[elleng]

46. Some good discussion here. Here's more:

'It would appear that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is history. But several other layers of the issue reveal that to be misleading.' >>>

http://open.salon.com/blog/djreidy/2010/10/16/dont_ask_dont_tell_the_law_and_politics_of_military_personnel_policy

Here's a different case discussing 'finality' issues:

Bell v. Board of Education Akron Public Schools

http://openjurist.org/683/f2d/963/bell-v-board-of-education-akron-public-schools

More discussion:

Congress, Not Courts, May Have Final Word on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473201630

[readmoreoften]

59. Yeah... crock of shit. More multidimensional chess. Sure.

[stray cat]

8. Why do so many DUers want a temporary stop that can be over turned to a permanant stop of it?

If it is left at this stage any judge can over turn it down the line.

[Better Believe It]

12. Who is appealing the federal judicial decision outside of the Obama Administration?

[MineralMan]

23. Who could? Nobody, I'm pretty sure.

Again, this judicial ruling would not stand for long, and we'd be right back where we started. A permanent solution is the answer, not a temporary, wishful one. I'm pretty sure that President Obama has some excellent advice regarding this issue. I'm sure he's following it. He's also a constitutional attorney, himself. Are you? Is the author of the article?

[ruggerson]

31. MineralMan, explain how Judge Phillips' ruling "would not stand for long"

specifics, please. Thank you.

[MineralMan]

35. It's simple. As a district court, the decision is at the lowest

level possible in the federal court system. A similar case can be brought in another district and, if the decision is different everything changes. This was explained very clearly by others in one of the earlier threads. Even if nobody has actual standing to appeal this case, other than the Justice Department, a fresh case could be brought in another district court, which is not bound in any way to rule the same as this one.

When that happens, there is a conflict and the original decision is no longer binding "worldwide" as the judge put it. In fact, that immediately will trigger an appeal to make a decision. Now, I do not believe that it would be hard to find a district court which could be counted on to rule differently than that California court. Further, I believe that the current Supreme Court would end up ruling in favor of DADT.

I'm not a lawyer, so this is based on other discussions and on reading a bunch of material written by people who are in the business of understanding the federal judiciary.

If we had a SCOTUS we could count on, then it would be no problem. We do not.

If, on the other hand, DADT is vote down in Congress, that's it. No court could reverse that. That's what President Obama wants, because it has permanence. At least enough permanence that it would require another Congressional vote to restore DADT.

DADT's time is done. It was a bad law. I doubt it would ever be resurrected if repealed in Congress. If we leave it up to the current Supreme Court, though, it might well end up being declared constitutional, since the court has a weird view of the Constitution these days. So, the Congressional route is superior.

[ruggerson]

37. A separate case cannot be brought

if the administration doesn't appeal.

If the administration deos not appeal, the statute is dead (it is dead right now.)

Someone in another jurisdiction cannot bring a suit against a law that no longer exists.

If the Obama administration doeso not appeal, this is over. It's as permanent as it gets.

Some future Congress and President could try to write a similar bill and see if it would pass legal muster - but that could happen with a legislative repeal, as well.

[MineralMan]

39. I believe you are incorrect on that. But, as I said, I'm not

an attorney of any kind.

[ruggerson]

40. The NY Times agrees with that analysis

and has published two editorials in the last three days advising Obama not to appeal.

No one else but the administration has standing to appeal this case, and the Judge's order has already killed the law.

Again, one cannot bring suit in another jurisdiction over a statute that does not exist any longer.

Obama's concern seems to be giving the military more time for its review.

The problem with that is that Senate repeal is not a certainty.

This Judges' order is.

[elleng]

18. right on (tho difficult for many to recognize.)

[Bluebear]

26. Always said by people with no skin in the game.

[elleng]

42. and lawyers, who understand the legal issues.

Those with skin in the game would, presumably, want a decision against DADT to be final and permanent, I'd think, and not a potentially temporary decision, which relying on the current injunction would be.

[ruggerson]

47. ellen, see post 37 and 40

[elleng]

50. Saw those, and posted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9336413&mesg_id=9337651

Surely no 'finality' at DU, but bravo for civil discussions!

[ruggerson]

51. thanks for the links

the first one is discussing SC review in the context of Obama's DOJ appealing. It does not delve into the idea of him NOT appealing and simply ending the process right now.

The second link is not really applicable to this statute.

The third link was written the day before the Judge's order on the 12th which struck the law down. SO it doesn't address that.

[elleng]

61. don't address this case, but give some idea about the legal issues generally.

None of this is simple, and people should understand the issues Prez O has to think about.

[ruggerson]

29. stray cat - explain the process by which Judge Phillips' order could be "overturned"

IF you're going to take a position on this, defend it factually.

[renegade000]

11. "The Republicans"?

Since when did the Log-Cabin Republicans suddenly become equivalent to "The Republicans"? The last I checked, "The Republicans" have been fighting DADT-repeal attempts tooth-and-nail: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/21/cloture-dadt/

Criticize Obama all you want about this, he rightfully deserves it, but you have to hold "The Republicans" to the same standards.

[Better Believe It]

17. Conservative Log Cabin Republicans. That's what they call themselves. That's what they are.

They are conservative Republican activists on almost every economic and political issue.

Their opposition to DADT is one of the very few issues progressives can agree with.

You oppose their opposition to DADT?

Perhaps you think they should be call themselves "counterfeit" or "fake" Republicans even if they agree with and support conservative Republicans on almost every issue.

Right.

[renegade000]

20. You've missed my point entirely

One Republican group being right about an issue doesn't mean that "The Republicans" are right about that issue. Nor can you say "The Republicans", when you're referring a specific group of Republicans. You just can't use synecdoche like that, unless you're trying to be disingenuous.

But I get it, we're trying to shock progressives into action or something with sly titles like that. Fine, whatever works...

[Better Believe It]

21. I missed your point on "synecdoche" big time until I looked up the word in a dictionary.

You'll have to instruct the established writer on the proper use of grammer and effective writing since I'm hardly an expert on that.

But, I'm glad you understand and agree with the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are in fact conservative Republicans.

[renegade000]

24. I apologize for being combative,

as we're on the same side. The Log-Cabin Republicans are right on this issue, and I give them tremendous kudos, but I just find it tremendously annoying that the author chose to refer to this minority group within the Republican party as "the Republicans", thereby implying that the entirety of the Republican party is as enlightened as they are on the matter (something that is demonstratively false). It's not really a matter of grammar or efficacy, but of intellectual honesty. I wouldn't have been annoyed one iota if the title had read, "Obama is wrong, the Log-Cabin Republicans are right." That would have given credit and blame where they were due.

[Better Believe It]

25. It's OK I don't think anyone will think the Republican party as a whole is ....

against DADT after reading the article and that clearly was not the intention of the author when he wrote: ".... the loudest complaints are coming from Republicans. Not, unfortunately, all Republicans. But the Log Cabin Republicans"

And we don't even know for certain who wrote the caption to the article!

[renegade000]

28. Yes, this is true

The title might very well have been written by an editor or something, to whom I will redirect my peeved-off attitude :P. And you're right that if people actually read the article for comprehension, they'll have the correct idea about the situation. I suppose what worries me is that I remember reading about studies done several years back that showed that large percentages of people only read headlines or skim news-articles superficially (I think I was reading a book called, "The News About the News" or something).

Of course, this is even worse in science-reporting... I can't stand stories that have titles like "New study shows famous scientist X was wrong!", when the study really only supplies some minor (but important) tweak or clarification to X's theory (that is still very much correct).

[Imagevision]

13. Republicans-Dems, kiddin?!!! you can have Porky Pig in there it wouldn't make a difference!

Big business founded the country and will always be running it. ask JFK...!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

27. The Nation never really loved him!!

:cry:

[Catherina]

30. Rec'd. To the displeasure of the Praetorian Guard rec'd/ n/t

[cliffordu]

32. SO "REPUBLICANS" are right? Not just a tiny self hating subset

of republicans who are on the correct side of one issue???

Even for you this is a stretch...oh, wait....no it's not.

:hurts:

[ruggerson]

33. The title of the OP is ridiculous, I agree

Should have been "Bizarre, in-denial group manages to pull of epochal victory. President needs to take the win and walk away."

[cliffordu]

43. You've got it, my friend...Or maybe

"Helsinki syndrome group wants to do the right thing in defiance of the party of Hate..."

[Better Believe It]

36. So you think "The Nation" is a rag and its writers are right-wing Republicans?

[cliffordu]

45. My issue with it is the misleading title, refuted later in the article

And the fact that YOU decided to let the idiotic title stand.

I believe that LC Republicans are self hating, Helsinki Syndrome people who think the current level of "conservatism" is just fine, thank you.


I'm glad they are standing up for this, but it doesn't make "Republicans Right" on this issue or any other.

IT just gives the mainstream assholes in the R party a little cover...A lot like Bobby Jindahl from two years ago - he was supposed to refute Obama as a 'Good (maybe) Smart Brown Person....Remember that???


****

I cannot understand why ANY person of ANY minority status in this country would stand with the R's at this point in their devolution.

I just don't fucking get it.

And the author of that shitty title ought to be ashamed.

[Mass]

38. "The Republicans?" Really. Buck, who compares homosexuality to alcohoolism is right?

John Nichols is wrong.

It is true that there are GLBT advocates on both sides and people who are wrong on both sides of the political chessboard, but "the Republicans' implies ALL of them, when the most vicious bigots tend to be on the Republican sides. So, this title is clearly offensive.

Also, where were the log Cabin Republicans under Bush? Certainly not fighting to repeal DADT. So, it is nice for John Nichols and others to see only what they want.

It does not mean Obama is right, but it certainly does not mean the Republicans are right.

[Better Believe It]

41. Your facts are just plain wrong. Outside of that minor problem it was a good response.

You wrote: "Also, where were the log Cabin Republicans under Bush? Certainly not fighting to repeal DADT."

The Facts: The Log Cabin Republicans filed their lawsuit on October 12, 2004. Bush was still the President on that date if you recall.

You wrote: "John Nichols is wrong. ".... the Republicans' implies ALL of them, when the most vicious bigots tend to be on the Republican sides. So, this title is clearly offensive."

The Facts: The article was crystal clear on this. Nichols wrote: "the loudest complaints are coming from Republicans. Not, unfortunately, all Republicans. But the Log Cabin Republicans -- the gay and lesbian group that secured the injunction from a federal judge -- are mounting the defense of the injunction."

So his comments confused you or are you just nit picking?

And we don't know for sure who wrote the caption for the article.

I take it you don't support the lawsuit against DADT because it was initiated by Log Cabin Republicans and you don't support the judges decision declaring DADT to be unconstitutional.

Is that right?

[Mass]

44. This still does not make your OP title correct. counterpunch's title is a lot better and at least

factual.

Fine, I was wrong with the date of the complaint (which makes me wonder what the judicial system does if it takes 6 years to consider this lawsuit, but this is another issue).

But it does not change anything in my complaint that was with the title of your OP and the Nation article. You want to ignore it, suit yourself, but the truth is that many people dont read further than the title. I would expect the Nation readers to know better than that, but it is still a bad title.

For the rest, you are accusing me of a crime I did not commit. I do not support the appeal, and never implied I did. Obama is wrong on this one. No question.

[Better Believe It]

62. Your self described "complaint" is way off base. But you were not totally wrong. That's good!

You wrote: "the truth is that many people dont read further than the title."

The facts: Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that many DU'ers don't read any further than the title of a post or is that just speculation on your part? If you can prove your claim I'd like to see it. Thanks.

You wrote: " you are accusing me of a crime I did not commit"

The facts: What "crime" did I accuse you of commiting and are we talking about serious prison time here?

You wrote: "Obama is wrong on this one."

The facts: That's what the article said, which you seem to both agree and disagree with .... or is it just nit picking on your part or the caption that you didn't like?

And why are you bashing President Obama? Do you hate President Obama?

Just kidding.

:)

And if you prefer Counterpunch over The Nation as a political source that's your right and I respect it.

[Tx4obama]

49. Obama is NOT wrong for wanting CONGRESS to vote to permanently repeal DADT

I am getting so tired of all the threads that seem to bash Obama for doing the correct thing regarding DADT.
It is much better for CONGRESS to permanently repeal DADT (in the Defense Appropriations bill) than for a 'district level federal judge' to be making law from the bench.

What is everyone going to say when a 'district level federal judge' rules that the Healthcare Reform Act is unconstitutional and issues an injunction to stop all policies pertaining to the Act? I betcha there will be a bunch of DU'ers hollering that 'district level federal judges' should NOT be making law from the bench!

Everyone, in my opinion, needs to look at the big picture and not just how one judge's ruling affects 'one' individual issue.

[VMI Dem]

52. So you are pretty much against these activist liberal judges legislating from the bench?

:rofl:

[Tx4obama]

55. Yes, and also...

the activist CONSERVATIVE judges too.
Especially those FIVE on The SCOTUS ;)

[Bluebear]

65. There is a judicial branch for a reason.

[ruggerson]

58. we have three branches oif goverfnment for a reason

A Senate repeal, signed by Obama, while welcome if it happens is no more "permanent" than this Court ruling.

They both strike down DADT.

The thing is the ruling is reality now while the congressional repeal is not.

The law is dead, hopefully the President won't revive it by appealing the ruling.

[JustinL]

64. how would letting the ruling stand prevent Congress from repealing DADT? n/t

[Bluebear]

66. crickets

[Better Believe It]

67. If the ruling stands that DADT is unconstitutional that would render DADT and void.

So they wouldn't have to repeal it.

That's my understanding of it.

A DU lawyer can gives us their take on it.

[pgodbold]

53. K & R nt