WHY is Obama trying to bring Don't Ask Don't Tell Back?

[TonyMontana]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/

I actually don't get it.

[liberal N proud]

1. Something I heard was that he wanted Congress to act on it

Not the courts.

Thinking the law would be more binding and keep it from being reintroduced later.

It was something I heard on ABC News, if I recall correctly.

[elleng]

9. Correct. It has to do with 'finality.'

[Better Believe It]

2. Because of the following immediate risks and harm to the military

"risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute."

Because of the following risks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9338942&mesg_id=9348749

[Rhythm]

3. Because we all know the consequences will be enormous...

http://enormousconsequences.com/

[seabeyond]

4. from what i understand he does NOT want to bring it back but get rid of it for good

thru congress and not courts....

isnt that what youa re hearing?

why are you suggesting obama wants to bring it back?

[Barack_America]

5. Um, because his DOJ has filed an emergency appeal to bring it back?

:shrug:

Also, please tell me why this "political solution" is so much better than allowing the courts to deal with it? And why he's so confident of his ability to achieve one with Dems set to lose seats in both houses?

[seabeyond]

10. i think the op's thread is flame bait and misleading. he knows obama is not about

permantly installing dadt in the military but wants it to go thru congress.

knowing that, and the way the op is framed, .... i want to know why he is purposely posing in a manner that isnt true.

[EFerrari]

12. Obama is under no obligation to appeal this decision.

And the decision in no way prevents Congress from dealing with it.

So, why is he appealing it?

[Barack_America]

13. Obama had his chance to get it through Congress, but he didn't prioritize it.

Now he has no reason to believe he even can get it through Congress.

[Better Believe It]

16. Oh stop your whining please. Thank you.

President Obama believes that the DADT is or should be constitutional.

Why else would he appeal it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. And why would an appeal be necessary to it going through congress?

The law is STILL on the books, whether the ban is active or not. Congress will STILL have to legislate it out of existence, even if the military has suspended enforcement.

It does not need to be in force for it to be repealed. In fact, by the time legislation has been drawn up, introduced, debated, voted on by the House, passed to the Senate, debated, and voted on by the Senate, the intervening weeks or months of showing no problems with it NOT being in place would just make a better argument for repeal.

The judge did not repeal the ban on gays - he simply said it was unconstitutional. That leaves the military to do what it is doing - stop enforcement until Congress repeals it, in compliance with the judge's ruling.

Appealing the decision is not necessary to the process.

[Cid_B]

17. A good portion is perception...

A significant portion of the public feels that the courts are taking on too much. The prop 8 reversal is probably the best example.

While DADT was not a direct issue that was voted on the WH still stated how they want to do things and the courts bypassing them makes him look weak.

Lastly, the WH does care about military readiness and going ahead with the "We'll figure this shit out as we go" plan will probably end poorly.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. "military readiness". How, exactly, did the decision to appeal help that? -nt

[Cid_B]

45. Whatever schedule...

the WH and DoD has drawn out to include the surveys, studies, changes to and implementation of policy, changes to UCMJ; readiness; training with task conditions standards; additions and/or modifications to the Equal Opporunity program; housing regulations/policies; hygiene and shower policies; dependents and/or spouse benefits etc.. etc...

All of those things take time to properly implement... (note - they could do it all tomorrow but it would be a clusterfuck so I am going to emphasize the word properly)

[Radical Activist]

22. The article makes it pretty obvious.

It sounds like Obama is trying to placate military leaders by letting them end DADT by their own process rather than having it done suddenly by a judges order. Kind of like letting them wade into a cold swimming pool slowly instead of jumping in all at once. I'm not sure if he's right to take that approach, but he's obviously NOT trying to bring it back.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/

The administration is in favor of repealing the policy but argued that changing it abruptly "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute."

[OHdem10]

6. Any "cultural issue" needs to be passed by Congress. They

directly represent the people. Passing it through Congress
makes it more acceptable to the people.

Passing it thrugh the courts make it a controversial issue
like Abortion. Roe V Wade was passed through the courts.
This is what made the Right so angry and the reason the
people on the Right want to be able to appoint all Judges.
This is why Righties are always yipping--we want Judges
to interpret the consitution not make laws.


Obama and many others want it not to be an issue we are
bringing up every elections for eons.

[kenny blankenship]

15. Great. Let's put YOUR rights up to a vote next. How would you like that?

If reproductive freedom was left up to the Congress / Senate, how can anyone doubt that abortion would still be unavailable to women, except through illegal operations and backalley abortionists? Abortion has been federally protected as a private matter between a patient and a doctor for FORTY YEARS and STILL the wise fathers of the legislative branch are continually chipping away at it.

No, if left to the Congress and the Old Man's Club called the US Senate there would be NO reproductive freedom in this country. How can anybody seriously doubt that? "We just don't have the votes," they'd say, sadly shaking their old gray male heads, "We're sorry - but the votes just aren't there."

[Barack_America]

21. Yeah, sort of like school integration.

I really could care less about "activist judges" pissing off the right.

Let's face it, the courts are often left to tackle what politicians are too weak to.

[pgodbold]

7. Because he was upstaged by gay republicans and he wants the credit. nt

[EFerrari]

35. You're probably right. n/t

[uponit7771]

8. To have the repeal be PERMANENT and not easily repealable by courts.

[EC]

11. Because he doesn't want laws to be overturned in courts

but by Congress...


If laws can just be declared unconstitutional and overturned - there goes roe/wade - gun registrations - healthcare - on and on...he doesn't want that door opened...

[kenny blankenship]

19. Roe v. Wade was a COURT CASE, not an act of Congress (Holy mother of merde!)

Roe v. Wade declared unconstitutional and overturned state laws outlawing abortion. And if the Supreme Court hadn't opened that door, it's FOR DAMN SURE Congress would never have been dragged through it.

[Better Believe It]

20. Huh? So Roe vs Wade and court rulings against discrimination and segregation were bad?

Sure don't want anymore of that happening!

And Obama's decision to appeal the DADT ruling is really all about health care reform and guns!

Right.

[kenny blankenship]

24. Apparently, some people think Judicial Review is when the justices take their robes off, to music

[Statistical]

26. Utter BS. If a law is Unconstitutional It is unconstutional. Period.

Going through Congress to repeal it instead doesn't make it less Unconstitutional.

If Obama is so worried about the precedent then why didn't he urge DC to repeal their handgun ban? That went to Supreme Court and was found ..... DRUMROLL .... Unconstitutional.

That "door" has been open for roughly 200+ years. It is the purpose of the Supreme Court (and lesser courts) to strike down Unconstitutional laws. Seperation of powers, checks & balances and all that quaint stuff.

[democracy1st]

46. thats the whole problem with Obama and his admin,to many strange mixed signals!

[_ed_]

37. You have a stunning ignorance about the law

See Marbury v. Madison, 1803, establishing judicial review of legislative and executive acts.

What the hell do you think the court does?

[Xithras]

14. For the same reason that gay rights groups are warning servicemembers not to come out yet.

Because a single judge can overturn the order on appeal, instantly re-legalizing DADT. Anyone who came out during the legal period would be immediately discharged.

[Barack_America]

25. The question is why Obama is asking the courts to do exactly that.

[Statistical]

27. What single judge? There is no single judge with that authority.

The ninth circuit ruled in Unconstitutional. It can't be overturned by any lower court.

At best the govt could appeal it to the full ninth circuit (12 judge panel). Alternatively they could file directly w/ SCOTUS.

[Radical Activist]

18. The Pentagon has already ordered the acceptance of openly gay recruits!

That was in the article you linked. I didn't know that. Awesome.

[Statistical]

31. Military is good at doing what it is told.

So far (until Obama administration changes that) they have been ordered by federal judge to not implement DADT policies. As such there is nothing that would prohibit a gay recruit from enlisting.

Military is suppose to be subordinate to civilian authority. They are doing exactly that as they should.

[defendandprotect]

23. Fear of a military which loves one another -- rather than rapes one another ....

One is bad for warmongers/warmaking -- the other works for moving people toward violence --

and murderous behaviors which work for MIC!

[alc]

28. policy/precedent/standard ops

It's better to have the executive branch defend all laws in court to their full ability rather than just the ones they agree with. Legislation would get pretty chaotic if the standard policy for laws a new administration disagrees with is to give a half-assed defense in lower courts then not appeal. It is just policy and not a requirement. Past presidents have refused to defend laws and Obama could here.

Consider upcoming health reform lawsuits and what could happen if a republican wins in 2012 or 2016. Since different parts kick in over time for 8+ years, there will likely be lots of law suits. Any supporter of health reform probably wants future administrations to defend the law in court even if they promised to get rid of it.

The problem for me isn't that they are appealing. It's that they don't already have a legislative resolution and they don't already have a plan for how the military will deal with it. It seems like on "day one" Obama could have told the military leaders to prepare the plan for how to do this in an orderly way. As far as I can tell don't even have a plan but are saying they need one.

[kenny blankenship]

30. I don't know - but one thing seems clear. He never actually instructed the military to plan for this

There seems to be a panic reaction on the part of the Pentagon and the Obama Administration to the Judge's ruling. They speak of scrambling to contain the "enormous consequences" of the ruling and the refusal to stay the decision. Well...

Obama was elected in early Nov. of 2008, and here we are about 2 weeks shy of Nov. 2010. The President-Elect had run on a promise to end DADT, and the issue had been on a boil for years. So all this time between Nov. 2008 and today, the Pentagon has apparently never drawn up a contingency plan to deal with whatever earthshattering readynessdestroying heartstopping pearlclutching consequences that the end of DADT portends for their sheltered little world. And apparently Obama has never instructed them to get ready for the day, even though he knew his Justice Dept was already answering a lawsuit over DADT which might mean its end, and even though the end of DADT was a promise he himself made in his first State of the Union Address, Jan 2009. It's his own policy - at least ostensibly - but he hasn't taken steps to prepare for the day it's actually realized and implemented?

That's more than a little fishy.

[EFerrari]

33. It's very hard to believe the Pentagon doesn't already have a program

to do this, Obama or no Obama.

[Statistical]

34. The Pentagon doesn't seem to be panicking. All the panicking and doom & gloom is from the Admin.

The pentagon quietly first ordered branchs to suspend DADT discharges. Next it quietly ordered recruiters to no longer turn away gay recruit and to process applications as valid applications.

The only entity in full on panic mode is the Obama administration. Why?

[Nite Owl]

32. I would like to see him not appeal

the decision but I wonder if this moves up and up in the courts and ends up at the SCOTUS would they then say it is constitutional? It would really be over then.
I gotta say though that I don't have much hope in the Senate to do anything so taking a chance with the courts might have to be the way to go.
Don't know which way is best.
:shrug:

[Touchdown]

36. My opinion is that he wants credit for it's repeal.

If congress acts without him, as in this last spring, it would show he's being led to it. So he cut a deal to delay until his "just how icky are the homos?" survey is done.

If it is struck down by court order, and declared unconstitutional, then it's gone and it's nothing he can brag about on the campaign trail.

He wants his hand in it. He wants credit. He's trying everything he can to make sure it's repeal doesn't happen without him, on his own terms.

[BlueCheese]

38. I don't get it either.

I kind of understood (but did not agree with) the claim that the executive branch has no choice but to defend just about every federal law. Fine. There's some minimal pro forma defense that needs to be put up. Sure.

But now the Obama administration is doing much more than the minimum, and doing it with considerable vigor. There's talk of "enormous consequences" and now an emergency appeal. Now the inescapable conclusion is this:

They don't want to let gay men and women serve openly right now.

The sympathizers will say that they want to make sure the transition is orderly, etc. Maybe. But people have good reasons to be skeptical, given the administration's actions on other related issues.

The idea that a legislative repeal is better doesn't hold water. I don't see any reason that Congress couldn't repeal DADT even after it's been struck down by the courts.

[emulatorloo]

39. And yet recruiters have been told to accept openly gay applicants and are doing so.

[BlueCheese]

43. The military is complying with the court order.

Their civilian bosses are busy trying to get it overturned.

[ieoeja]

40. He wants a stronger legislature.

About judicial activists he said they, "ignore the democratic process" and "impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically."


I partially agree with him. The Legislature *must* be pre-eminent of the three powers in a democracy. The Judicial branch is only second-hand representative. And the Executive concentrates power in an individual. Roman Senators elected the first Ceasars. Then lost all power eventually.

That said, I view Civil Rights as one area where the Judicial should reign supreme. On that specific, I disagree with Obama.


On edit: it is also possible he just wants credit for repealing DADT!

[Jacque Poutine]

41. I am at a loss

It\'s out of character. I hope there is a legalistic reason for this.

[Xolodno]

42. Not a lawyer...but....

.....whats to stop a future Republican President to appeal DADT if Obama decides not to pursue it?