Betrayal of GLBT community: Obama administration formally files appeal to DADT overturn

[Politics_Guy25]

This truly is a slap in the face to the GLBT community. I don't buy the reasoning that they want Congress to reverse this rather than a judge. It was the Supreme Court if you recall that issued Brown V. Board of Education ending segregation, etc. Would they have appealed that as well because Congress should have done it? Can you imagine the Bush administration appealing a ruling that gave their base what they wanted? No way. They would get around it.

This is ridiculous and honestly it proves that the President's committment to GLBT rights is skin deep. What a way to treat a voting bloc that helped you to win the landslide you did in 2008.

MSNBC just had an army officer who loves Obama as I do who was absolutely appalled at this ruling.

There is no excuse for the Obama administration to do this to our friends in the GLBT community. None.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/20/military-gays-us.html

The Obama administration asked a U.S. Appeals Court on Wednesday for an emergency stay on the recent "don't ask, don't tell" ruling that would allow gays to serve openly in the military.

President Barack Obama has said he supports getting rid of the law, but wants Congress to repeal the policy.

The move comes after the Pentagon on Tuesday directed the military to accept openly gay recruits for the first time in the country's history.

Also Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, who ordered the military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, saying it was unconstitutional, rejected government efforts to halt her order.

This is bullshit and no I am not withdrawing my support from Obama over this or supporting a primary challenge but am I appalled you bet.

[stevenleser]

1. Agree, appalling from a values standpoint and stupid from a political standpoint. n/t

[no limit]

2. Well, atleast they didn't wait until after the election. More honest to piss on their base now. n/t

[msanthrope]

3. Completely misleading and incorrect title--this NOT an appeal of the ruling itself, but a request

for an emergency stay pending the appeal period....

The 'appeal' itself hasn't been filed.

[Politics_Guy25]

4. They had 60 days to do this

and did it within a week. They are not acting like an administration forced to do this kicking and screaming at all.

CONGRESS WILL NEVER REPEAL DADT. The courts overturning it is our only hope.

[emulatorloo]

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

[pnwmom]

7. What would be the advantage of waiting the 60 days? n/t

[no limit]

9. Politically? It wouldnt piss of their base more than they are already right before an election

morally? It would allow more openly gay people to enlist in the military in that 60 days.

But they shouldn't wait 60 days to appeal this, they shouldn't appeal this at all.

[pnwmom]

12. Doesn't the Justice Department automatically defend every U.S. law

from being overturned?

[no limit]

14. They do as a matter of tradition. But they are under no legal obligation to

[pnwmom]

Do you know if the Judge's ruling only affects that Federal district?

Wouldn't it be better to have SCOTUS confirm that ruling and extend it to the rest of the country?

[no limit]

22. Some people here have been spreading misinformation that it only affects her district

that is absolutely not the case, it affects the entire country.

The issue here is precedent. Her ruling in her federal district legally binds the entire country. However, it does not set precedent in other districts. That means a judge in another district is free to rule another way.

Normally this could be a potential problem in the future. But in the case of DADT precedent is not a problem. Because to bring a case in federal court you must have a claim of damages. That means a person would have to argue that gays in the military hurts him. No federal court, no matter how conservative, would take that kind of case seriously.

So if they don't appeal this DADT is over and gays can openly serve in the military forever. Hope this information helps, spread it around next time you hear someone make the false claim that this judge's ruling only affects her district.

[pnwmom]

27. Here's where you lost me:

"Her ruling in her federal district legally binds the entire country. However, it does not set precedent in other districts. That means another district is free to rule another way."

How can it "legally bind" the entire country without setting precedent? If other districts can rule another way, how can this ruling "legally bind the entire country"?

[msanthrope]

34. You have correctly pointed out the poster's utter lack of legal knowledge.

He's conflating two different issues, badly.

[no limit]

36. No, Im not. I asked you what court has found DADT to be constitutional.

I am waiting for the answer.

[msanthrope]

42. You might wanna read Cook v. Gates before posting about DADT legal issues.

Just a thought.

Or you might wanna read Marcum, or any other of a dozen or so post-lawrence federal court decisions.

I'm sure you have access to these cases, right, since you are a lawyer?

[no limit]

48. I responded to you below.

I never said I was a laywer. And you are yet to point out what I said was false. If there were no other cases in other districts then this would become the law of the land. This is absolutely correct and it is the only claim I have made. If a federal court overturns a law that applies to the entire country (even if it doesn't set precedent).

[msanthrope]

53. So, still haven't read the cases, have you?

[no limit]

55. As I just told you, I responded below.

And again, anything I said above, which you took exception to, is absolutely correct. Federal district rulings are the law of the land unless another district rules a different way.

[msanthrope]

61. Um, no. They aren't "the law of the land unless another district rules a different way."

Not unless you go to the Orly Taitz School of Law and Dentistry.

[no limit]

75. Um, yes. They are the law of the land unless another district rules a different way.

You know for a second I thought we could have a good conversation about this since you seemed like you knew what you were talking about. My apologies for making the mistake that you knew what you were talking about.

[msanthrope]

83. Let's be clear about something--we would never have a "good conversation."

You know why?

Because you, like other some other posters, seem to think that the law is merely what you've read off of blogs and Wikipedia.

And even when you are corrected, by posters who are attorneys, you persist is spreading falsehoods and misinformation, conflating distinct legal issues, and refuse to educate yourself.***

You are completely incorrect. Utterly. Breathtakingly so. And what's worse, when you are schooled, you don't have the sense to stop digging.


***I'm not even going to get into the US government as a party issue, because I don't think you would grasp it.

[no limit]

86. Yup, we are all idiots. You are a genius. Its just a shame you can't answer some basic questions

Question such as if this isn't binding in all districts why did the judge issue in an injunction that the military is now following in ALL districts.

where did you get your law degree? pat roberts university?

[msanthrope]

94. Wow---

Do you even realize that you are conflating 'precedent' with 'remedy?'

These are two different issues.

The precedent of the ruling, and how it affects other courts has nothing to do with the reach of the TRO. The reach of the TRO is a natural consequence of the parties. The precedential value of the case, and its persuasiveness on other courts is something else entirely....

You are interchanging two different things, badly.

[no limit]

98. I have not confused anything. I TOLD YOU ABOVE THIS JUDGE DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT

in other districts. You keep insisting Im confusing what precedent is, no Im not. You are either incapable of reading, you do not understand some basic ideas, or worse you do know what you are talking about and are trying to confuse everyone that doesnt understand this issue.

The rulining in the 9th district does not set precedent in other districts, exactly as I've said over and over again. But a ruling in the 9th district affects the current law in all districts unless a judge in another district rules another way.

Now I asked you the same question 3 times now, do me a favor. Answer it.

The judge overturned DADT and issued an injunction against the military. This affects the entire country. If it doesn't then you are saying the judge is an idiot that had no right to do what she did. And on top of that you must think the military is ran by a bunch of idiots because they are following that injunction when they dont have to as according to you that injunction is only valid in California.

You are wrong, it's almost funny how wrong you are. And if you are truly a lawyer you must be this guy:



I must say, Im a huge fan.

[msanthrope]

103. Again, you are wrong.

"But a ruling in the 9th district affects the current law in all districts unless a judge in another district rules another way."

No.

"The judge overturned DADT and issued an injunction against the military. This affects the entire country."

Yes. But not for your mistaken logic in the first statement.


In the former, you have greatly misunderstood 'authority' and 'persuasiveness' and what is 'binding' and on whom. The rulings of 'A' district do not become the default of 'B' district. They must be ruled on--either affirmatively, or not.

In the second, you have failed to consider that the TRO's reach is a natural consequence of the parties. Nothing more.

[no limit]

105. Ok, lets pretend Im wrong (without you explaining why). Lets see how well you understand the law

if the justice department doesn't file an appeal what happens?

[msanthrope]

108. Be more precise with yout hypo, so that I can give a more precise answer. n/t

[no limit]

109. It's a very simple answer you have to give. Let me make it easier for you

If the justice deperatment doesnt file the appeal DADT is overturned and is no longer law. Correct?

[msanthrope]

141. It depends.

It depends on the entire right wing not appealing, intervening, filing their own cases in friendlier circuits, etc.

You WANT this to go up the line. Look the administration didn't call a single witness to defend this case. This is the dance partner you want.

[no limit]

143. So you are saying, as a lawyer, the right wing has legal standing to appeal?

[msanthrope]

153. Again, it depends.

It's entirely possible that if the DOJ fails to appeal, certain parties will attempt to intervene as legislators, military chaplains, servicepeople, etc.

Lamar Smith is attempting to intervene in DOMA. Legislators can intervene in some cases.

How successful will they be is another matter--note the Prop 8 case. But do you want the case bogged down in that? Or a quick ride up?Let the DOJ do this.


Let's not even start with the cases filed in other districts.

[no limit]

155. Agian, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

You are saying, as a lawyer, that in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America if the justice department does not appeal other parties in the right wing have legal standing to appeal it for them?

If that is indeed what you are saying please guide me through this process, because I have never heard of this concept before.

[msanthrope]

158. Yes. It's possible that other parties can assert an interest.

Normally, one cannot assert intervenor status on appeal, yet that very issue is before the 9th circuit right now.

An intervenor is someone who has a recognizeable interest in a suit's outcome. They essentially tack on to the parties. Look to the Prop 8 case-although the State of CA was sued the intervenors--the proponents of prop 8 were given intervenor status and did all the heavy lifting because they were the real party in interest.

You have a few wrinkles here. Like the MA DOMA case, you may have legislators asking for intervenor status because they think the DOJ won't support properly a law they passed.

You may have military chaplains, who have a colorable 1st amendment claim.

You may have other soldiers, military officials.

And that's not counting possible suits filed in friendlier courts.

[no limit]

159. And how likely do you think it is that Judge Virginia Phillips would let someone else appeal?

You know that chances of that happening are non-existent.

Lamar Smith filed his motion to get the courts to let him appeal DOMA on October 5th, it has not been granted.

So I think you and I can both agree that other parties will not be allowed to appeal and can probably move on from that point, right?

[msanthrope]

164. what makes you think Phillips has the final say on

that issue?

Also, she doesn't control other courts.

[no limit]

168. No, she doesnt control other courts. Lets just concentrate on this one case for now if you dont mind

If she doesn't have the final say on that issue who does? What steps need to be taken to get a court to let someone else appeal a case that currently only the justice department has legal standing to appeal? As you know this would have to be granted within the next 52 days as that is the deadline for appeal. How realistic do you think it is that this would happen? Lets be honest. It wont happen. So can we move on to what happens once an appeal to this ruling doesn't take place or do you want to keep talking about this extremely unlikely scenario?

[no limit]

127. Maybe you're busy, but I would like a reply to that questions. It's a simple yes or no

and after all this bullshit you should atleast have enough decency to offer up a reply

[msanthrope]

147. I was picking up my kid. Lighten up, Francis.

[no limit]

149. My apologies. I hope we can keep this going

you have my word that I wont leave this discussion and if Im wrong I will admit it. I hope you can do that same.

[no limit]

35. Here is how it works

A group of gay republicans filed a lawsuit against the military saying that DADT is unconstitutional. A federal court in California agreed and overturned that law. If no appeal happens then the law is overturned in the entire country.

However, her ruling since she is only a district judge does not bind other courts in other districts to rule the same way she did. That means if there is a case on DADT in another district a judge in that district can still rule that DADT is constitutional.

That is a problem, and because of the conflict a higher court would have to get involved. But in this case there is no conflict, only one district judge has ruled on the constitutionality of DADT (I am pretty certain of this, someone below said that other districts have ruled it constitutional, I don't believe this and am waiting for examples). So as long as Im correct and no other federal courts have found DADT to be constitutional as long as this isn't appealed DADT would be over.

I hope that makes sense

[laughingliberal]

78. It is binding on all unless a case is brought in another district and a different opinion rendered.

As the Log Cabin Republicans have a ruling in their favor, I see no reason they, or anyone else in agreement, would file a similar suit somewhere else.

[no limit]

81. Thank you

[msanthrope]

99. No, you are conflating two different things--

The persuasiveness of the case, and the reach of the TRO.

[laughingliberal]

101. No, I am not. nt

[msanthrope]

106. Yes, you are, because you conflating 'federal districts' with the US government....

The TRO reached because of the parties involved....not because of any affects on the federal districts....

you are missing that this is a party issue, and not a 'binding' issue...

[laughingliberal]

113. Bottom line: DADT can not be currently be enforced by anyone anywhere

and, unless, Phillips' ruling is overturned, it never would be able to be used again.

[COLGATE4]

192. Her decision binds the entire contry until another District court

rules differently. Then you have a conflict which has to be resolved by appeal.

[msanthrope]

26. Yes. The legal obligation is contained within the oath of office

itself, the Constitution, and lastly, spelled out in a series of OLC memos.

Now, there is precedent for the President to make exceptions for laws that are plainly unconstitutional--but you have a problem here...

Outside of a single district court, DADT has been found constitutional.

[no limit]

31. the office of legal counsel works for the president, they can write a new memo

Where has DADT been found constitutional?

[msanthrope]

41. And what would that memo say? That President Palin, should she find a single district court

sympathetic to overturning Medicare, need not defend the laws of the United States?--It's also pretty obvious you have no idea what writing an OLC memo entails, or the import of them.....

Where had DADT been found constitutional?

Are you kidding? Don't you think you should know the leading cases before you post? Try Cook v. Gates and work backwards....read Marcum while you are at it.

[no limit]

47. President Palin could write her own memos, yes. Just as the Bush administration did

Are you aware of the torture memos?

And you are saying that the federal judge didn't know what she was talking about when she issued an order forcing the military to stop the DADT policy? Clearly, she must be aware of Cook v. Gates? Unless you think she's stupid, no?

[msanthrope]

73. Are yu saying the torture memos are an example this administration should follow, in either form

or content???

What the hell?

[no limit]

74. I am simply pointing out to you, mr. lawyer, that the DOJ is under no legal obligation to appeal

If this administration actually followed the law to the letter on everything they do I would agree they shouldn't use the OLC to overturn DADT. But clearly this administration doesn't care about the law when it comes to things like rendition, privacy, and other issues. So they might as well use it for good.

You didn't answer my question about Cook v Gates.

[laughingliberal]

82. The military is accepting openly gay recruits in all districts. They seem to see it as binding. nt

[no limit]

84. The military, the judge, and your 12th grade government teacher are all idiots

the only person that truly knows is this one guy on DU.

[msanthrope]

97. As I noted above, the poster is conflating two different issues--

the precedent of the ruling itself, and the reach of the TRO--please note that your post concerns the latter, not the former.

[no limit]

100. I have not confused precedent, I told you the judge does not set precedent over and over again

yet you keep insisting I never told you that even though I did, atleast on 3 different occasions.

[laughingliberal]

102. Please note: openly gay people are being accepted into the military. nt

[msanthrope]

104. Yes. And that speaks to the parties in the TRO, and it's reach--

which has nothing to do with how other courts are bound.

[no limit]

107. Nobody said other courts are "bound". You are making up arguments people arent making

[laughingliberal]

76. No, they do not. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. By appealing this before the election, they pander to the homophobes.

But estrange the Gay community and its supporters.

Guess they figure they have more homophobic voters????

[no limit]

23. 70% of americans support repeal. So politically this is fucking stupid.

[msanthrope]

32. But this isn't an appeal. n/t

[sabrina 1]

120. The advantage would not be to the administration considering

it would wipe out their reasoning for not repealing DADT.

The advantage would be to Gay Troops who would be legal members of the military for at least two more months. That of course would demonstrate that the argument that the military needs time to adjust to the change in policy, is nothing more than an excuse. And they do not want their excuses to be exposed as groundless.

There really is no defense for this.

[msanthrope]

11. Wrong. This isn't a notice of appeal--

This is a request for an emergency stay pending the period of appeal--

Let me explain---the admin has 60 days to file an appeal of the judge's ruling itself, on the issues.

But, in the meantime, the judge has refused to stay her ORDER--thus, this is a request for an emergency stay of the order, pending the appeal period.

[walldude]

154. Well thank god for that

now we just have to wait for them to file the appeal.


This has to be the most pathetic defense of this administration I have ever seen. If they are filing for a stay that means the appeal is next. Or are you saying they aren't going to appeal and this is some kind of... fake out?
Come on can't you just admit that the Obama administration has failed miserably and continues to fail miserably and by the looks of it will keep on failing miserably in the future on the issue of gay rights? Is it that hard to admit that this administration has flaws and that this one is the most glaring?

[Betty Karlson]

189. It has been now.

Obama and his ilk disgust me. Is this fierce advocacy? No, it is pure and unadultarated discrimination.

[MineralMan]

6. Sounds like it's time for the GLBTQI people and the rest of us

to put the pressure on our Senators. We can do that. We should do that. We must do that.

A Congressional end to the law will be permanent. Let's all start pushing it.

[EFerrari]

8. That has nothing to do with this appeal or with requesting this stay. n/t

[msanthrope]

13. Actuallly, it does.

Making this case mooted would be a win for everyone, with the best chance of surviving judicial review.

[EFerrari]

17. Nope. No appeal is necessary for Congress to move. n/t

[msanthrope]

33. Um, that's not what I said.

Let's try this again---it's best for all parties if this case is mooted.

Think about why it would be.

[EFerrari]

45. Maybe you should try it again. There is no need to appeal the decision

as Obama is doing in order for Congress to act. Think about why that matters. :think:

[msanthrope]

57. Have you realized yet that this is not an appeal of the decision?

And you are still missing my point--

[EFerrari]

68. Your quibble is beside the point as usual.

They are filing for a stay pending appeal. Quibble.

[msanthrope]

70. So you admit you were wrong? This isn't an appeal?

The law turns on 'quibbles' otherwise known as 'facts.'

[MineralMan]

29. You're right. It doesn't. However, it's still a very good idea, just

in case, don't you think? I think it's a good idea, no matter what. In fact, I've been lobbying Congress members for repeal of DADT for a long, long time. It's already passed in the House, so we need to turn our attention to the Senate.

What could be wrong with taking that strategy and running with it?

[no limit]

10. This ruling if not appealed will also be permanent.

If they don't appeal this the law is overturned and no more DADT. Simple as that.

[wolfgirl]

15. Unlike under the Bush administration

the DOJ is under obligation to defend the laws enacted by Congress. I would suggest all those in a panic over this find the segment on the Rachel Maddow show (I think it was Monday) and her discussion with a former Solicitor General about the issue, as well as the setting of a precedent by one administration failing to defend laws they just don't like v. defending all laws.

This is not as cut and dried as everyone would like it to be. To actually get DADT (and eventually DOMA) overturned, we must go through the Congress for repeal - with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I would hate to have the issues brought to them for a ruling. If (and it's a very powerful if) they were to overturn the lower court, the GOP/TP'ers would shout it to the rooftops and Congressional action would die.

WE, as voters, need to be in daily contact with our Congressional folks (Reps & Sens) in pushing for them to take fast, positive action to repeal DADT. We cannot leave it all at the feet of Obama (as much as we'd like, he's not superman)!


Now go call, demand action - do something other than moan & groan & lament the inaction of Obama!

(I'm off the soapbox!)

[no limit]

16. You are absolutely right. That's why the war criminals from the Bush admin are all on trial now

oh wait...

[polichick]

24. +1

[wolfgirl]

28. I wish the Bush folks were in jail, too....but it ain't gonna

happen. Unfortunately, the divisiveness that would have ensued if the DOJ had gone to town on those goons would make today's problems pale in comparison. NO I'm not happy or satisfied, but I get the reasoning behind that decision.

What I do know is that if anyone votes for a GOP/TP candidate in this election or the next is just plain crazy. I may be mad at some Dems (okay - a lot of 'em) but to sit at home or vote for the opposition is suicide for progressive causes (i.e. LGBT rights, etc.).

[no limit]

37. You just contradicted yourself.

The DOJ either has the obligation to uphold all laws or they dont. If they did then clearly Bush and others in his administration would be on trial (or atleast under investigation). Since that is not the case that means your original argument, that this is about upholding the law, is simply not true.

[jgraz]

184. No she didn't

In both cases, she's firmly in the "it's always right if Obama does it" camp.

[displacedvermoter]

62. You are "moaning and groaning"

and aren't being at all practical!!!

[Jayster84]

18. Unfortunately, the President's job is to enforce the law.

The President's job is to enforce the law whether he agrees with it or not. His personal opinions do not matter. The constitution spells this out. He can either work to change the law, which he is attempting or let it get overturned. He can stop defending it when it gets to the SC. There's a good possibility they will allow it to stand and strike down the other decisions. He is working on the most practical path, changing the law. However our representatives are homophobic bigots. The President does not get to choose the laws he will enforce.

[EFerrari]

20. No. The President is under no obligation to defend a blatantly discriminatory law. n/t

[msanthrope]

52. True--but that raises it's own problems--other courts have upheld DADT.

You can't have the President deciding who is correct--that is for SCOTUS to resolve.

[northzax]

63. actually, yeah, he kinda is

this whole administration of justice thing doesn't really work if the government gets to pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce and defend in court and which it doesn't. if the President wishes to change a law, there is a way this can happen (in case you picked up your degree from the Christine O'Donnell School of Jurisprudence, here's a handy video primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ ) but picking and choosing which ones to defend in court is not the way to go about it. among other things, imagine it's 2013, and President Palin finds a friendly judge to rule that environmental regulations are subject to the takings clause of the fifth amendment. you're cool with the appeals stopping there?

[EFerrari]

67. Nope, he's not, not even "kinda". n/t

[northzax]

80. so, in your view

just to be clear. the President has the right, even the obligation, to refuse to enforce or defend laws that he or she doesn't like? are you actually willing to extend that privilege to all Presidents, and all laws? or just certain ones?

[displacedvermoter]

59. He has chosen not to enforce US Laws against torture,illegal

search and surveillance, etc.

He is so practical, though!

[Blue_Roses]

19. I get so sick of these knee-jerk responses...

get your facts straight before you post. This ruling PROTECTS the GLBT from any drawback that is bound to occur with this ruling. To have Congress appeal DADT once and for all will give the strong protection needed rather than a "band-aide" approach. I think Obama is being cautious and that is very wise here.

[no limit]

25. I get so sick of these ill informed responses that are not based on any kind of facts whatsoever

when a court finds a law unconstitutional congress can't just go in and pass the exact same law again. Even if they could you would need 60 senators to pass such a law. Clearly not possible if democrats are in fact opposed to DADT.

[Blue_Roses]

40. well, let's start with the example the OP used:

Brown vs. Board of Education. While this ruling did rule in favor of desegregation in schools, it didn't end segregation in other areas. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act--which had to be passed by Congress. I think Obama wants to go straight to the law that will once and for all overturn this, while giving NO wiggle room to appellate courts in other case decisions.

"The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. It was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools. Even partial desegregation of these schools, however, was still very far away, as would soon become apparent.

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html

[no limit]

132. If Obama does not appeal this ruling there is no wiggle room, DADT is overturned and no longer law

simple as that. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand this basic concept.

The reason Brown v Board of Education didn't ban discrimination outside of public schools was because the court only dealt with the issue of public schools.

[Blue_Roses]

191. Brown vs. Board of Education was a landmark decision no doubt,

and did lay a lot of the foundation, but it still did not ban segregation in public places. That was the reason for the Civil Rights Act, which did abolish segregation on a "broader" level. It's not about whether one is a lawyer or not, it's about the facts of history.

Jeffrey Toobin, explains this decision very well here:

...The administration 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."

Toobin said the administration would like Congress to deal with the issue on a political level and doesn't want the courts to take it on unilaterally.

-snip-

By battling the legal challenge to the existing law -- a traditional practice of the U.S. government -- the administration is trying to buy time to implement the repeal process worked out with military leaders and contained in the legislation before Congress.

If the 9th Circuit eventually overturns Phillips' ruling and Congress does not take any action, "don't ask, don't tell" could be back.

"And the Obama administration would be responsible for that," Toobin said.

more ...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T2

...which goes back to what I was originally saying--this decision actually protects the overturning of DADT and will make wiggle room non-existent--just like the Civil Rights Act.

[Ignis]

39. Bandages are an essential component of treatment.

1. Stop the bleeding.
2. Fix the problem.

:shrug:

[Blue_Roses]

43. eventually you have to remove the bandaide...

and you want to heal the problem, otherwise it only gets infected and takes longer to heal.

[Ignis]

92. That's probably why it has the number "2" next to it.

I'll type more slowly this time, but I'm not sure it will help:

1. Stop the bleeding.
2. Fix the problem.

[EFerrari]

51. There is no need to appeal for this to come before Congress. n/t

[laughingliberal]

87. Exactly! Some really stupid meme going around here about this ruling having to be appealed in order

...for for Congress to act. There is no reason Congress can't repeal the law with this injunction firmly in place.

[Touchdown]

30. And the derailing has begun.

:eyes:

Obama must not be criticized under any circumstances whatsoever! He's the shit!

[QC]

38. It's like watching a precision drill team, isn't it? n/t

[treestar]

44. No, only if he vetoes a bill repealing it could you scream "betrayal"

why is your rage not directed at Republicans? :banghead:

Like McCain, who said he'd filibuster.

Why?

[Jakes Progress]

46. Remember this when some republican does something like this?

Will you be there supporting such actions when it isn't Obama doing it? Suppose jeb is president. Would you be so smugly defending his actions?

Wrong is wrong.

[treestar]

54. I think I could remain objective

on the lawsuit thing. It was never out there during the Bush Administration - no one used it against him. But this is pointless. Jeb will never even discuss trying to get rid of DADT. Wouldn't even try. And for that why is your rage not at Republicans! :banghead: Why?

[Jakes Progress]

138. Give it up.

You have no concept of my rage against republicans. You have no idea how many years I have fought republican stupidity, greed, and meanness. Instead of bleating why as you beat your head against a wall, just pull it out of the ground and remember that we elected a Democrat (something I helped to do) in order to not have them do what republicans do.

So my rage is also because I helped elect a Democrat who is now enforcing republican values. Why does that enrage you? Maybe it's because of that headache you get from banging your head instead of standing up for something.

[northzax]

64. would you defend Jeb refusing to appeal

a ruling he didn't like? you're fine with President Palin and Attorney General Todd unilaterally deciding which laws to enforce and appeal?

[Jakes Progress]

136. You think jeb and sarah are that noble?

Just what in their nature makes you think they won't unilaterally decide which laws to enforce and appeal. Why did we elect a Democrat if he is not going to enforce and appeal laws that reflect our views. The republican presidents certainly reflect theirs. This is not a president with his hands tied. There are no laws requiring him to do this.

[northzax]

150. ah, the old "but Timmy's parents got him a puppy" line

if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

I voted for Obama because I believed he would enforce the law as written. that's his fucking JOB. sadly, that means sometimes having to do distasteful things.

[Jakes Progress]

167. Did you say you voted for Obama so that he would enforce DADT?

Stop playing games. You drag timmy, his dog, and a bridge into a discussion about civil rights.

Let's cut the bull. Do you favor DADT? Would you favor it if Obama said it should stay in effect? Would you favor it if bush said it should stay in effect?

Once we know your position (other than rah-rah my guy) we can have a basis for discussion.

[northzax]

195. yes, I voted for him because I believed he would enforce the LAW

the entire law, not just the parts he liked, as his predecessor did. DADT is, unfortunately, federal law, passed by Congress, signed by the President and everything. you do know how bill becomes a law, right? it is the job of the PResident of the US to enforce the law. no matter if he agrees with it or not. there are mechanisms in place to change laws, which he is using in this case to change this ridiculous law. but while it is a law, no one Federal judge should be able to unilaterally remove that law from the books. it should, at the very least, be a circuit court decision. process is important.

make sense? the minute we start letting Presidents off the moral and legal hook for enforcing only the laws they choose to, is the minute we deserve another Bush as President. I didn't like it when Bush ignored the law, I don't like it when Obama does either.

[EFerrari]

49. Because McCain is not filing for an appeal? n/t

[treestar]

56. But he does not want dADT repealed!

Obama does! You may not agree with HOW he does it.

And McCain would have no problem with appealing it too. Why is your rage not at Republicans? :banghead: Why?

[EFerrari]

66. Obama has said he wants a lot of things.

And he is the party filing this appeal.

[Touchdown]

50. Yet another pantload.

McCain is being McCain. No amount of rage will make him go away sooner. Obama is supposed to be an ally and advocate, but he is not.

It's been struck down. It doesn't need repeal. It doesn't need a repeal by Congress, and it doesn't need signing or veto from The President. It's done, if he just leaves it alone.

People here are always harping on "Too much on his plate" and "More important things to work on". Well, DADT is something he doesn't have to worry about anymore, or even waste his time on, freeing up his calendar for his other agendas. But he's not doing that, because if it dies, he's got no credit for it's repeal.

With DADT, Obama is like the Republicans and abortion. They talk a good game about banning abortions, but they will never ban it outright. Their base will be satisfied and stay home if it happens. As long as Obama can keep the "I want DADT repealed" narrative going, he can drag us along to the polls in hopes of him doing what he will never do.

[treestar]

60. So you are giving Republicans a pass?

Why are you not mad at them? You do not agree with how Obama is going about it. But at least he tries. You insist on not understanding the appeal process. (though maybe you do by now and are just pretending in order to be outraged).

But why no rage at the people who out and out say there should be no gays in the military? :banghead:

Why?

And why is serving in the military the most important thing in the world? One would think few DUers really want to sign up for the military. But at any rate, given it as a question of equal rights, why do you not rage at those who think DADT is too much and would outright forbid the right to serve. In other words REPUBLICANS

Why is gays serving in the military more important than the economy? Than banking reform? Why did you expect Obama to put it first?

Why do you think Republicans would put it first? If they did, what would they do?

[Touchdown]

91. No. That's not what I said.

Repugs are snakes. They are expected to be against anything that benefits people. There is no surprise, and there is no debating them. Why waste my breath? Obama (at least I still have faith) can be reasoned with, which is why he should be made to do the right thing... as Rep Grayson told you last night.

[laughingliberal]

93. "And why is serving in the military the most important thing in the world?"

The most important thing is for people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, to be able to have access to all the same rights as anyone else. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Touchdown]

110. Also, as a former solder that had to hide being gay when I was in.

I find you wisecrack about DUers not wanting to join, and continued defense of Obama's indefensible actions insulting.

[TheKentuckian]

117. No democracy without equality. The President has the power not the idiotic and unreachable

TeaPubliKlans.

We have no influence over these fuckheads and are livid at them 24/7. Now those who do get our effort, money, and votes are also on the wrong side and should feel the heat.

There are many areas of bipartisan douchbaggery and they cannot be left unattended while we scream at pukes about being racist and tax cuts for years and decades. The issues must be dealt with and a real fucking Democrat wouldn't be pulling random excuses out of her ass to continue bigotry against her brothers and sisters.

[laughingliberal]

188. +10,000 nt

[displacedvermoter]

65. Thank you!

[donco6]

77. Yep. Trying to keep milking the GAYTM. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

58. Uh yeah ..... seven level chess. Gottit

I'd prefer a 7 layer burrito.

[HughMoran]

85. 1st grade reactionary impulse?

It's one or the other these days, no middle ground.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

162. Pot. Meet Kettle.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

69. In this thread: amateur night n/t

[GodlessBiker]

71. He should withdraw the notice of appeal and get the Senate to vote to overturn DADT.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[msanthrope]

72. Actually, no---

if he withdraws the Notice, (was a notice filed?) then here's what you are going to have---

Intervenors--just like the Prop 8 case, and just like DOMA (Lamar Smith)

Which only slows the fairly fast-track appeal this is on....Besides--did you see the 'great' job the DOJ did????



Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put
on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history
of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not
suffice to show the Act's restrictions on speech are "no more than is
reasonably necessary" to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit
cohesion. (See supra Section IV(C)(1).)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183082/Decision-finding-DADT-is-unconstitutional

[GodlessBiker]

79. No, the Prop 8 intervenors don't have standing to appeal. No one in the DADT case has standing ...

except the government. Intervenors work at the trial level, they don't work at the appellate level.

[msanthrope]

88. You've made my point---

Right now, the Prop 8 intervenors and the proposed intervenors are appealing that point. Thus, adding to the litigation. making it slower....

[GodlessBiker]

112. Whatever. I hope Obama is ready to own DADT if the 9th Circuit reverses Phillips' ruling ...

and Congress takes no action.

[county worker]

89. They want it to go to the Supreme Court.

The idea is that any local federal judge can rule any law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

If there was a law that you supported and a right wing judge said it was unconstitutional you would want the administration to step in.

[ClarkUSA]

95. Or Congress to repeal it before it gets to that point. That's right, county worker.

<< The idea is that any local federal judge can rule any law passed by Congress unconstitutional.

If there was a law that you supported and a right wing judge said it was unconstitutional you would want the administration to step in.>>

Exactly.

[county worker]

115. I listened to Stephanie Miller's show this morning and got that.

[EFerrari]

114. But this isn't any law. It is an obviously discriminatory law.

There is no good faith way to defend this law.

[county worker]

118. They still have to follow the procedure. The law is discriminatory

that's right. From what I learned this morning they are not doing this to harm gays or to step on the base.


I don't like the way a lot of things are going but in this case the OP is not doing us a favor.

[EFerrari]

121. No, they do not have to appeal this ruling. That's simply untrue.

As I've posted elsewhere, even that @sshole Arnold had the decency to decline to defend Prop 8 in court.

The Obama administration is under no compulsion whatsoever to defend DADT.

[county worker]

123. There is a significant difference and I don't recall off hand but I heard your argument

this morning and the reason there is a difference. I will try to research it.

[county worker]

126. From Oct 13th TIME

Why Obama Is Challenging the Courts' Pro-Gay Rulings

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025270,00.html

snip:

But if Obama does not appeal, it's likely that no one else will have the standing to do so. The result: a single trial judge would then set policy for the entire country on a question of fundamental importance — a situation that the Administration perceives would be an uncomfortable one for a substantial number of Americans.


snip:

The gay-marriage case in California has strong parallels to the "Don't ask, don't tell" decision now confronting Obama. The marriage decision is under appeal, with arguments scheduled to take place before a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel in early December. But already, questions of legitimacy have dogged the case. That's because California's elected leaders did what Obama has so far refused to do: Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to appeal the ruling. For now, a third-party group has been allowed to step in and appeal, but many observers — including the trial judge who heard the case — have said the Ninth Circuit may rule that they lack standing. If that happens, gay-marriage opponents tell TIME, the courts risk damaging their legitimacy.

[EFerrari]

128. "the courts risk damaging their legitimacy" is the right wing argument.

And, when you think about it, the appeal has nothing at all to do with getting Congress to work on the issue.

In fact, Obama's appeal is very dangerous. Because it risks re-instating DADT without any guarantee whatsoever that he can get Congress to take it up. It's the riskiest way of all to proceed and frankly, it's inexplicable to me.

ETA: Thank you for looking that up, county worker.

[laughingliberal]

137. Well, well. We can't have a 'substantial number' of uncomfortable Americans, can we?

If the comfort level of a substantial number of Americans is a big concern of his, I have a list of things he might want to take another look at.

[msanthrope]

151. Precisely. You have the core issue, perfectly.

[ClarkUSA]

96. There is no easy out. Walter Dellinger was on the Rachel Maddow Show making this case last week.

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. On the Rachel Maddow Show, he said that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[laughingliberal]

116. Noted. And he is entitled to his opinion. Does not make him right.

Is 'delicate dance' the 'gay friendly' 11th dimensional chess?

[county worker]

122. No one's opinion makes them right.

I wish that the truth behind every decision of the administration was known by all of us. I question a great many things the administration does.

But I think in some cases the rush to judgment is wrong and self serving as in this case.

Labeling the administration a supporter of DADT as the OP suggests without a proper discussion of the reason behind the action is not helping any of us.

[laughingliberal]

124. People could be forgiven for reaching conclusions on a preponderance of the evidence.

President Obama has stated he is against gay marriage. He asked Congress to delay repeal of DADT. He is appealing a court ruling declaring DADT unconstitutional (which it is). He favors repeal by the Congress? Fine. Heard any reports of his staff pressuring our recalcitrant Senators to vote for repeal?

Sorry, those whose lives are affected by the lack of equal rights and equal protection in our country have every reason to doubt his 'fierce advocacy.'

[county worker]

135. No need to be sorry. I agree with your last statement.

I hate the way things are going now. I'm even having a daily argument with myself about should I even let my self feel as bad as I do about it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. Yes, I was impressed with Dellinger. He made the most sense and now I understand

what Obama is doing. We want a PERMANENT repeal of DADT that is enforceable at the federal level!

[laughingliberal]

125. No one, including Dellinger, has explained how allowing this ruling to stand prevents Congress from

...repealing the law.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

129. Yes he did. He explained that the Senate will block any repeal.

The problem is that we need to convince Collins and Snowe to come aboard, which isn't happening...

[EFerrari]

133. That's not an answer.

That has nada to do with Obama's appeal.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

144. Since you're the constitutional scholar, what is your solution to this issue?

And it has to fall within the scope of the U.S. Constitution, keeping in mind that we have a fascist Supreme Court run by a bunch of right wing corporate homophobes.

[laughingliberal]

165. My solution is for Obama not to appeal & withdraw his petition for an 'emergency' stay and have...

Congress continue their work towards repealing the law.

Simple.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

178. Congress will never repeal the law. That's where both you and Obama are wrong.

We have wingnuts in the Senate who will continue to block the repeal of DADT.

So that's not a viable the solution.

The solution that we want is for the repeal to have an effect at the Federal level. Yes, a federal judge issued a repeal, but does that have federal impact? Could someone sue and bring the case to the Supreme Court?

Seems to me that we're fucked either way.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

179. It won't happen! The Repukes in the Senate will block any measure to repeal.

So that's not a viable the solution.

The solution that we want is for the repeal to have an effect at the Federal level. Yes, a federal judge issued a repeal, but does that have federal impact? Could someone sue and bring the case to the Supreme Court?

Seems to me that we're fucked either way.

[laughingliberal]

134. That explains why the plan to have Congress repeal the law is iffy, at best, not how appealing

this ruling makes it more likely Congress would repeal DADT.

[EFerrari]

131. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this appeal will result

in a PERMANENT repeal. None. Zip. Zero. That argument doesn't hold water.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

142. So what would you have the president do? n/t

[laughingliberal]

145. I would have the President decline to appeal Phillips' ruling and withdraw his petition for an...

emergency stay of the injunction she issued.

I thought that was clear.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

177. But that doesn't solve the problem. That won't wipe out DADT.

I want a permanent solution that has the force of law at the federal level!

[laughingliberal]

187. Actually, it does have a federal impact. Or did you miss the part where the military was accepting..

openly gay members yesterday? Whatever 'permanent' solution you envision is not hindered by Obama letting Phillips' ruling stand and declining to appeal it.

[ClarkUSA]

148. You got it: "We want a PERMANENT repeal of DADT that is enforceable at the federal level!"

:fistbump:

[laughingliberal]

160. Yes & that can happen without Phillips' decision being appealed & with her injunction in place.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

169. That's your opinion. On the other hand, there are legal experts who agree with the WH.

Besides, Walter Dellinger, there's Nan Hunter, first winner of the Dan Bradley Award, GLBT National Bar's highest honor posted that she thought that it has to be appealed for the same reason that DOMA challenges had to be appealed. Excerpts and links were posted here" if you're interested in hearing from someone with far more legal expertise than anyone here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311547&mesg_id=9311547

[laughingliberal]

173. There are others who disagree with them. I see nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else...

that would prevent Congress from repealing DADT with Phillips' ruling in place.

And we've seen quite a few examples posted of cases where various DOJ's declined to appeal cases when a judge overturned a law.

All I needed to know about the President's true feelings was revealed when Axelrod found it necessary to repeat the President's position of being opposed to gay marriage just a few weeks ago.

[redirish28]

130. HE didn't want it overturned and is bascially stabbing the GLBT in the back

:grr: :grr:

[county worker]

140. I feel that there is no factual evidence to support what you said.

If I had it I would agree with you. I don't know the reason the administration does a great many things. I fault them for not saying before they do something the reason they are doing it. They open themselves up to the criticism they get. Personally I think you are wrong but I can't prove you are either.

[redirish28]

152. The way I look at it If the Obama asministration wanted to overturn DADT

they would not be filing appeals and stays.


This game of "We want it overturned the right way" is nothing more than that A GAME.

[dbmk]

157. So when the next republican administration takes over

..they just fix it so some low level court does away with the laws they don't like - they are free not to defend the law of the land as long as it the ones they don't like, right?
Why have Yoo and Co. write memos, if its just that easy? Why have a Congress for that matter?

Seems to me, from what I can gather of information, that the DOJ is doing what its supposed as required by the law and oaths taken. Whatever oral taste it leaves them with.

I think DADT is irrational, degrading and just plain wrong from an equal rights and humanistic perspective. I find it utterly horrific.

But it seems to me that the response to this particular development is a horrifying willingness to set aside the very rules one wants to be protected by - however understandable the emotion that fuels it is. And less by an understanding of the way that system works.

Is there really someone left that thinks Obama does not want to do away with DADT? That he is trying to fail on such a high profile topic on purpose?

You can call it claims of nth dimensional chess or what not - but I will not be making any claims. I do _think_, though, that he is trying to make this change as bulletproof as possible to protect it from being ravaged by the kind of people that, without blinking, will do exactly what you are asking him and the DOJ to do.

[laughingliberal]

166. Continuing to push Congress to repeal the law does not require him to appeal Phillips' decision.

DOJ is not obligated to appeal this ruling.

[ClarkUSA]

171. That's your opinion. Legal experts such as Walter Dellinger and Nan Hunter agree with the WH.

If you're interested in listening to someone who has far more legal knowledge than anyone at DU, check out Nan Hunter, first winner of the Dan Bradley Award, GLBT National Bar's highest honor. She posted that she thought that it has to be appealed for the same reason that DOMA challenges had to be appealed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311547&mesg_id=9311547

[laughingliberal]

174. Their agreement with the White House does not mean they are the last word on this.

An 'emergency stay???' God knows what irreparable harm might result if gays were to serve openly for another week!

This is as ugly to me as Bush v Gore. Let's hope we don't see the same subversion of our Constitution with this.

[dbmk]

193. It certainly does not mean they are the last word on this

But maybe, just maybe, it could mean that there is some legal reason and reasoning behind it that is in line with getting DADT repealed and keeping it that way?

I recognise that not everyone with the legal and GLBT chops to be respected on this area seem to agree that it was necessary - but there seems to be enough thinking that it is to make a claim of betrayal seem a hysterical conclusion.

[LonePirate]

139. Given all of the unrecs, a lot of DUers seemingly support Obama's betrayal of the LGBT community.

It's no wonder LGBT face discrimination and lack some key civil rights given that Democrats are not 100% united behind this issue.

I, personally, am disgusted by this. Bravo to the OP for speaking up.

[county worker]

146. I really hate the way you put that.

You have no right to say that. You have no right to judge the motives of people because they disagree with you. Why the hell am I wearing purple today?

[krabigirl]

161. Of course. It is typical. It's no wonder the Dems are doing horribly in the polls.

Fuck the corporate wing of this party.

[laughingliberal]

176. A quick read of the responses will confirm that. nt

[donco6]

181. Observant folks, such as yourself, see it quickly.

Others can't see beyond The Abs.

[dbmk]

194. Or a lot of DUers don't think its a betrayal?

Just like a some GLBT advocates with some pretty strong credentials in the fight for equal rights think its not.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[FreeState]

163. The gay community is not all in agreement on everything ever - however

you know damn well Nan Hunter is not in the mainstream of the GLBT community on this issue (among others).

[Prism]

170. You have to give them some slack, FS

It's hard work finding one gay voice to cite endlessly in confirmation of preformed privileged rationale to treat the LGBT community shabbily.

And ever since the biggest example of that was TS'ed from DU, the search is on in earnest to find replacement gays. Nan fills that role nicely for this issue. Next week, it'll be someone else.

I almost appreciate the effort and total lack of self-consciousness in the constant practice of it.

[ClarkUSA]

172. lol! The fact is, Nan Hunter has far more legal credibility than anyone here.

Ditto for Walter Dellinger. :)

[laughingliberal]

175. Your 'opinion' has been duly noted.

I'm of the opinion anyone who backs up the President's actions on this would be found 'credible' by you.

[donco6]

182. Sez the non-ally of LGBTQI people. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

198. Prove it. Rhetoric does not "a fact" make.

[laughingliberal]

186. I'm gonna go with Jonathan Turley* on it.

<snip>...And even if Obama chose none of those options, once the Log Cabin Republicans suit was filed, Obama could order that DADT not be enforced pending the suit result. But what especially makes some DADT opponents’ blood boil is that the administration is fighting so hard for DADT in court. The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”

Some experts wonder why the administration even chose to defend the law in the first place. Turley maintains that they didn’t have to: “The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?” Many liberals feel betrayed by a president who they see as having chosen to enforce and defend a discriminatory law. <snip>

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-fo...

*JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients. These include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations). <snip> :)

http://jonathanturley.org/about /

[dbmk]

190. Isn't the problem that it has been upheld as constitutional by other courts

At which point the President and DOJ cannot just deem it unconstitutional as Turley says he can?

(Albeit it I would be surprised if he had not considered that fact.)

[ClarkUSA]

180. Top legal expert and LGBT award honoree Nan Hunter sides with the WH on this issue.

It's instructive to listen to those whose legal expertise far exceeds anyone here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311547&mesg_id=93

[donco6]

183. Spamming again?

Yawn . . .

[ClarkUSA]

196. That's untrue.

[laughingliberal]

185. I'll see your Hunter and Dellinger and raise you a Jonathan Turley*.

<snip>...And even if Obama chose none of those options, once the Log Cabin Republicans suit was filed, Obama could order that DADT not be enforced pending the suit result. But what especially makes some DADT opponents’ blood boil is that the administration is fighting so hard for DADT in court. The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”

Some experts wonder why the administration even chose to defend the law in the first place. Turley maintains that they didn’t have to: “The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?” Many liberals feel betrayed by a president who they see as having chosen to enforce and defend a discriminatory law. <snip>

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html?from=rss

*JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools.

After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades ranging, representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients. These include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is facing criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations). <snip>

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

[ClarkUSA]

197. lol! Turley is a loose cannon media whore who also supported impeaching Bill Clinton.

Turley also trashed Sonia Sotomayor when Pres. Obama first nominated her to the SCOTUS. In terms of legal credibility, Turley can't hold a candle to Nan Hunter or Dellinger.

BTW, you have yet to answer this poster:

dbmk (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #186

190. Isn't the problem that it has been upheld as constitutional by other courts
At which point the President and DOJ cannot just deem it unconstitutional as Turley says he can?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9354490&mesg_id=9360717