It is complete and utter BS to say "Obama HAS to appeal DADT decision".

[Statistical]

The DOJ has a duty to defend CONSTITUTIONAL laws. When the court renders a decision there is nothing that requires either party to appeal it. Routinely agents of the government (of all levels) accept the decisions of the court. Very few (less than 1/100th of 1%) of all cases ever get to the Supreme Court. Virtually all are settled at lower levels of the court. Obviously somewhere along the line one party decided not to pursue the issue further (or at the least accepts they have no reasonable chance of winning).

The judge laid out the specific reasons why DADT is Unconstitutional. He didn't just say "gays should serve because it would be nice". He said:

So Held: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act violates Log Cabin members' substantive due process rights because it does not significantly further the Government's interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. The Act also violates Log Cabin members' free speech rights because its restrictions on speech are not only broader than reasonably necessary to protect the Government's substantial interests, but also impede military readiness and unit cohesion.

The administration could accept the decision of Judge Philips. They are not compelled to act against the pursuit of justice. They aren't compelled to blindly defend any and all laws no matter how unjust. Now if DOJ believes that "reasonable arguments" can be made to the Constitutionality of DADT then (and ONLY THEN) are they bound to vigorously defend it. The Obama administration hasn't defended every law challenged, no administration ever has. Defense of DADT indicates that at least some element of the administration believes the law IS CONSTITUTIONAL and are defending it with the intent to see that resolution. The idea they are def

I mean if Congress passed a law making slavery legal (or some other abomination of justice) is anyone going to sit here a exlaim that Obama has to defend a law making himself a slave? Really? I mean WTF people. Anyone defend the actions of the administration in this case are simply blind to any errors Obama can make not matter how egregious. It is beyond pathetic.

Edited for some horrible grammar (sorry I got worked up).

[HopeHoops]

1. This one completely defies logic.

:shrug:

Why doesn't he just let it go and fade out of the "news of the moment" spot light?

[pnwmom]

2. Does this Judge's ruling go beyond the Federal District that he is a part of?

Would the advantage of a Supreme Court ruling be that it would apply to all Federal Districts (i.e., the whole country) not just one?

[Statistical]

4. Directly it applies to one district however there is nothing to prevent

it from being used as indirect precedent in another district. It simply means another district judge isn't compelled to follow that precedent.

Still that is a strawman. If the DOJ appeals this then they are compelled to provide the best possible defense. To try will all effort and conviction to convince the Supreme Court that homosexuals never have and never will have the RIGHT to serve. Period.

So the idea that the administration is persuing the law in an attempt to cause itself to lose to further the ruling they are defending is simply false.

[msanthrope]

14. Did you look at the actual 'defense' of this case by the DOJ?

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

[EFerrari]

3. Correct and agreed. n/t

[soleft]

5. I heard an argument on TRMS that seemed to make some sense to me

I forget who she was interviewing - but basically the rational was if Obama Admin. did not defend US Laws then in the future, if some backwater judge decided to declare HRC unconstitutional, it would be very easy for a Republical Administration to decide not to appeal it.

Of course, not that Obama administration upholding a tradition that ensures parity administation to administration would prevent a future Republican administration from renegging on their duty to defend - but that's the argument that was made.

Damn, wish I could remember who it was because it was a trusted source. Maybe Jonathan Turley....

[jgraz]

11. It wasn't Turley

He's on record as saying that Obama has no obligation to defend DADT.

[msanthrope]

15. Turley also supported impeaching Clinton--take his legal acumen with a grain of salt. n/t

[jgraz]

71. I couldn't care less about that.

A twelve-year-old political stance has zero bearing on his current work as a constitutional scholar. The guy was one of the first people to start loudly objecting to Bush's abuse of power. Now that he's turning that same critical eye on Democrats, some people suddenly don't like him so much.

[Ignis]

6. It's fierce advocacy.

Sadly, it's on the wrong side of this issue.

[Statistical]

8. Fierce advocacy doesn't have to be blind.

No administration has defended any and every decision by a court that went against a law as written.

That wouldn't be fierce advocacy. That would be blind (and dumb) advocacy.

[Ignis]

10. Let's be honest: It's political CYA.

There's no advocacy for a progressive position here. It's simply an effort to win votes / prevent vote loss from the center-right. I get that.

But it's still a big smelly crock of shit that flies in the face of our platform, the historic general election mandate handed to this administration, and the Leftist commitment to equality. :thumbsdown:

[leftstreet]

17. +1

But it's still a big smelly crock of shit that flies in the face of our platform, the historic general election mandate handed to this administration, and the Leftist commitment to equality.

Very well said

[EFerrari]

28. +!

[laughingliberal]

26. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9345321&mesg_id=9346035

[Ignis]

67. Loved that pic.

Pity that thread was locked, but I guess the homophobes got what they wanted for their efforts.

[xchrom]

7. Recommend

[ieoeja]

9. Maybe he just wants credit for repealing DADT? (nt)

[Statistical]

12. I hope that isn't the case.

Would make Obama a more cold and calculating politician than even say Reagan.

[msanthrope]

16. Only Congress can repeal, not him. n/t

[msanthrope]

13. Other courts have not found DADT to be unconstitutional.

The Executive doesn't resolve circuit splits....SCOTUS does. So this will go up the chain---


and no fear, because look how the Admin 'defended' this one:



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

Now, if President Palin found fundy district court judge who overturned Health Care, should her administration quit at the lowest federal level, because she got the ruling she wanted? or is she obligated to uphold the laws of Congress?

[treestar]

19. True enough. Imagine the defense a Republican administration would put on

Complete with side show about showers and all other dog whistling garbage.

[Statistical]

20. The DOJ is only obligated to defend Constitutional laws.

Laws that they find credible and reasonable arguments in its defense.

By your argument you indicate the Obama administration finds DADT to be Constitutional.
No attorney general nor any other officer of the court takes an oath to defend endlessly unjust and unconstitutional laws.

The Obama administration filed a stay against the injuction. You do understand that you can't just file a stay because you believe it is wrong. By definition the administration is indicating the injunction would create serious and irreversable damage if the stay is denied.

[treestar]

18. People are letting their emotions work on them

On the subject of the law and legal procedure, which can be quite dry and boring - people should not use that stuff as a basis for outrage. People simply do not understand, and when explained, do not wish to understand. It's more fun to be outraged and betrayed apparently.

Why is there not more concern for the Republicans in Congress who would gladly pass a law saying gays can't serve in the military or do other things? Sometimes people are unrealistic about what we are fighting and focus of little things while letting the big dangers get bigger.

[Statistical]

22. Some people just can't accept that Obama can do wrong.

There is nothing anywhere that requires this administration or ANY administration to defend the Constitutionality of any law.

They are simply duty bound to defends laws in which "credible and reasonable" arguments can be made in its defense.

Every year hundreds of decisions affecting the limits, scope, and Constitutionality of laws are allowed to stand without further appeal. There is NOTHING that prevents the administration from accepting the decision unless they believe that DADT IS CONSTITUTIONAL and credible and reasonable legal arguments can be made in that defense.

[EFerrari]

23. "People" understand very well that Obama is unnecessarily appealing

the ruling and risking that ruling being overturned WHILE he also can't deliver in Congress.

"People" understand that very well.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

25. He was full of it then and he continued to be full of it every time you post this.

Even that @sshole Arnold had the decency not to defend Prop 8 in California. He DECLINED.

Delicate dance, my granny. Obama is pushing the matter forward in courts recklessly and there is no evidence DADT can be repealed in Congress. That's about as ham fisted and indelicate as possible.

[ClarkUSA]

29. lol! I'll take a Democratic Solicitor General's word over an anonymous blogger's any day.

[EFerrari]

31. Faith based reasoning. And, btw, I post under my own name.

lol

[ClarkUSA]

35. Yes, I have faith in Walter Dellinger's knowledge of constitutional law more than yours.

[EFerrari]

38. Exactly. You're arguing his authority and not his reasoning. Thank you. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

40. No, I trust Dellinger's knowledge of constitutional law more than yours or anyone else's at DU.

[Statistical]

33. What about the word of the Clinton attorney general who failed to appeal Dorman amendment?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/14/the-obama-administrations-unappealing-political-cowardice

It wasn't just an opinion. They did the "impossible". All it took was political will to do the right & Constitutional thing.

No officer of the court is bound to defend blatantly Unconstitutional laws. It would be equivalent of saying a prosecutor MUST seek a conviction in each crime no matter how obvious the fact that no credible suspect can be found. Crime was committed so someone must go to jail. The "law" demands it.

[Touchdown]

75. Who said anybody had to convince you?

You have no say in this matter, and you have no power, so who gives a shit what you think or who you trust?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

74. You are aware that Obama OPPOSED prop 8 yes?

He can't really be blamed for the people who organized the opposition to prop 8 deciding against using what he sent em.

[Touchdown]

76. You are aware that doesn't mean shit, yes?

He said he does not believe in gay marriage, Prop 8 proponents took that as an endorsement, regardless of his mealy mouthed speech.

[Statistical]

27. BS. In 1996 the Clinton administration CHOSE not to appeal a law barring HIV+ soldiers.

Strangely the entire political system as we know it didn't implode. The DOJ looked at the decision, consulted w/ military and legal experts, could find no credible legal arguments to defend it and thus .... DRUMROLL..... did the "impossible" and didn't appeal it.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/14/the-obama-administrations-unappealing-political-cowardice

Here is what Clinton administration said:

"Based on this advice from the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after consulting with the Department of Justice about the legal effect of that advice, the President concluded that the Dornan Amendment is unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminates and violates all notions of equal protection. Again, at the direction of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will decline to defend this provision in court. If the Congress chooses to defend this treatment of men and women in the military, it may do so. But this administration will not."

What? WTF? Hold on jack. A district judge found the Dornan amendment (bars HIV+ soldiers from serving) to be Unconstitutional, and the Clinton DOJ FAILED TO APPEAL. Holy Shit batman I bet the entire US political structure imploded after that. Based on what DU "experts" kept telling me that would be utterly impossible (like perfect compression).

The idea that Obama (or any administrations) must defend all laws, under all conditions no matter how utterly biased and Unconstitutional is a joke and a pretty crap one.

[laughingliberal]

30. Seems to be ignoring, along with others, that the injunction doesn't prevent repeal of the law...

by Congress.

See, it could work like this: DOJ could decline to appeal, injunction against enforcement of DADT could remain in place, and Congress could repeal the law.

This injunction serves to make sure no other military personnel are discharged pending Congress' repeal of the law. Nice and neat.

And as I've already noted, the 'delicate dance' is likely to get us about as far as 11th dimensional, jedi warrior chess has.

[ClarkUSA]

32. So what? You're ignoring, once again, Dellinger's point.

[laughingliberal]

34. Dellinger is as entitled to his opinion as I am to ignore it. nt

[EFerrari]

36. That "delicate dance" business is repulsive.

The only dance going on here is a political one and it's stepping all over the lives of American service people..

[laughingliberal]

37. I think they wore out '11th dimensional chess.' And, being a 'gay' issue makes 'dance' appropo. nt

[ClarkUSA]

39. Tell it to the Republicans in Congress.

[EFerrari]

41. The Republicans in Congress aren't the moving party. Take some responsibility. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

43. What does that mean? Then why did the DADT repeal vote in the Senate fail?

[EFerrari]

45. The Republicans in Congress are not filing this appeal. Obama is.

But let's take the Republicans in Congress. If you are right and they are obstructing, then Obama's argument that this should go through Congress is also a big fat fail because he can't deliver.

So let's review. He's pushing an appeal in court of uncertain outcome AND he can't deliver in Congress.

Reckless with the lives of American soldiers, there is no other conclusion one can draw from this administration's actions.

[ClarkUSA]

46. The WH has probably decided this is going to the Supreme Court if Congress won't repeal it.

[EFerrari]

47. Exactly. Reckless. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

48. lol! No, it's absolutely the best thing to do. Either Congress or the SCOTUS has the final word.

[EFerrari]

49. But Obama said he wanted to end DADT, not get the final word.

Are you saying that isn't the case?

[ClarkUSA]

54. I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you.

[EFerrari]

56. It's not a semantic game. Getting the final word is not the same

as getting the desired outcome. Sorry if those goalposts are getting heavy for you.

[ClarkUSA]

59. lol!

:boring:

[EFerrari]

62. That's what I thought.

:)

[EFerrari]

50. But according to Obama, he is interested not in the final word

but ending DADT. Are you saying that isn't the case?

[BzaDem]

55. Obama is also interested in cap and trade. That does not mean he is going to enact it by fiat.

If you believe that one district court judge should be allowed to toss out a law with no review, when the exact same law was upheld by appeals courts (even you and I think this precedent was wrongly decided, as we do), you don't believe in us having a democratic government. There I said it.

It is amazing to me how people can't look just 3 steps in front of them to see the broader consequences of their position. Amazing.

[EFerrari]

57. Oh, baloney. After this point. Barack Obama can no longer claim

that he is working to get rid of DADT.

Because the course he is taking is unnecessary. It's that simple.

[BzaDem]

58. After this point, Barack Obama can no longer claim he is for cap in trade. Because the course of

you know, asking CONGRESS to enact the law, is unnecessary. Congress has no standing army to confront the President with.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

61. Congress has nothing to do with this appeal. Fail. n/t

[BzaDem]

63. In general, you are saying all that matters is the outcome. Not the legality of how the outcome is

achieved.

So the FAIL actually belongs to you.

[ClarkUSA]

65. +1000

:applause:

[EFerrari]

66. Wrong. BARACK OBAMA said he wanted a good outcome.

So the fail belongs to HIM.

[BzaDem]

68. "Wanting a good outcome" implies "wanting a legal outcome." This is not difficult to understand. n/t

[laughingliberal]

24. K & R nt

[Recursion]

42. It's appalling

And there's absolutely no excuse. I can't even think of a decent reason for them to do this.

[Romulox]

44. When you're right you're right. K/R. nt

[BzaDem]

51. The problem is that there is circuit court precedent upholding DADT that is directly on point.

Just as recently as last year, the First circuit upheld the constitutionality of DADT (and the Supreme Court denied cert). I think such precedent is wrongly decided, but that doesn't mean the precedent doesn't exist.

It would be the same for Social Security. There is higher court precedent upholding Social Security. That means if a district court judge ignores this and throws out Social Security, a Republican president couldn't simply refuse to appeal the district court ruling.

If there were no higher court precedent upholding DADT, you would probably be correct.

The correct action is to nominally appeal. If the government now believes DADT is in fact unconstitutional (and I sure hope it does after Phillips' ruling), it can argue that in court, and allow the court to formally decide. But the fact that there is higher court precedent upholding DADT means a conflicting lower court ruling needs to be appealed. Clinton's solicitor general went through this on Maddow some time ago.

[grantcart]

52. True if you don't want an appellate level opinion

Another judegement in another district court would then create two standards (not an uncommon act).

Given the fact that 5 previous district courts have found it constitutional is probably the reason that leading GLBT legal authorities want an appellate decision, preferably a Supreme Court decision that would then be final.

[EFerrari]

60. But I thought the outcome is what mattered to Obama.

Is that wrong?

And who are these "leading GLBT authorities" you cite but don't cite?

[grantcart]

64. I don't time to do an exhaustive search but when the issue first broke

I googled GLBT Legal Expert DADT Appeal


and the first name that came up was 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:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311547&mesg_id=9311547

[Prism]

69. One person. He found one person.

I'm sure there are there others. LGBTers aren't a monolith.

But the history of straining mightily to find that one LGBT voice that agrees with the perpetual interests and preformed opinions of the privileged continues unabated.

One person is practically the entire LGBT legal establishment to hear people on DU tell of it.

[BzaDem]

70. I never thought I would see the day where doing something the legal way is merely "agreeing with

the perpetual interests and preformed opinions of the privileged."

When Bush was in power, his unilateral executive power was often used in illegal ways, and people here were (rightly) very concerned.

But when Obama is in power, it is somehow perfectly legal and legitimate to let a single district court judge repeal a law (with no possibility of review) that was upheld as constitutional by higher courts just last year (even if that wasn't a correct decision). Screw the future consequences of such an argument, that could be used to attack ANY law the next Repub President isn't thrilled about. The ends justify the means, etc etc etc.

Amazing.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Your citation does not mean what you think it means.

"The relevant portion of the Dornan Amendment was held as unconstitutional under the Roe vs. Wade decision. In other words, prior precedent."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9355792&mesg_id=9355856

What AmericaBlog said:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9355792&mesg_id=9355928

"I googled GLBT Legal Expert DADT Appeal and the first name that came up was 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":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9311547&mesg_id=9311547

"The problem is that there is circuit court precedent upholding DADT that is directly on point."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9354576&mesg_id=9355952

"Given the fact that 5 previous district courts have found it constitutional is probably the reason that leading GLBT legal authorities want an appellate decision, preferably a Supreme Court decision that would then be final."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9354576&mesg_id=9356004

[suffragette]

72. There seems precedent for the DOJ not appealing and

for them to allow the courts to resolve their own conflicts surrounding cases.


Heres a link to an article on the case:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/07/dc-circuit-judge-calls-for-en-banc-court-to-review-speechordebate-protection.html
ULY 09, 2009
D.C. Circuit Judge Calls for En Banc Court to Review Speech-or-Debate Protection

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was part of a three-judge panel that ruled from the bench in favor of a congressman whose lawyers argued in January in a rare-closed door hearing that documents and testimony provided to the House Ethics Committee cannot be used against the congressman during a grand jury investigation.

~~~
The D.C. Circuit opinion does not reveal the congressman’s identity, and it does not name his lawyers. But after oral argument in the case this year, The Washington Post identified the congressman as ex-Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who was part of the government's investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Feeney’s lawyer, Patton Boggs partner Robert Luskin, declined to comment to the Post and to Legal Times in February. Luskin was not reached today for comment.

According to the D.C. Circuit opinion, lawyers for the congressman argued that the documents the government wants to review are protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. They also said the documents are protected congressional speech under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. The D.C. Circuit rejected the government’s position that the congressman was acting in his personal capacity—and not in a legislative one—when his lawyers provided statements to the House Ethics Committee.

~~~

Writing separately, Kavanaugh called for an en banc court—at an appropriate time—to harmonize conflicting opinions in the D.C. Circuit. The appeals court has twice ruled on whether information provided to a congressional ethics committee is protected and reached two differing opinions.




DOJ dropped/chose not to appeal the case:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7339
DoJ said to have dropped two-year investigation into corrupt former Florida Rep's lobbyist-funded trip to Scotland...
Late last week, alleged vote-rigging conspirator and former three-term Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) was informed that the Department of Justice was dropping their two year probe into his 2003 lobbyist-paid junket with Jack Abramoff to play golf in Scotland, according to his attorney Robert Luskin (who also happens to be Karl Rove's criminal attorney).


http://electionlawblog.org/archives/014209.html
August 06, 2009

"DOJ WILL NOT APPEAL D.C. CIRCUIT RULING ON DEBATE-CLAUSE PROTECTION OF LAWMAKER"
BNA offers this report ($), which begins: "The Justice Department has decided not to appeal a decision by a three-judge federal appeals court panel, which held that the Constitution's speech-or-debate clause protects a lawmaker from having to testify in a DOJ probe related to jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff (In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, D.C. Cir., No. 08-3056, unsealed 7/9/09)." The D.C. Circuit opinion is here (and see this order).

[sabrina 1]

77. Thank you for this information, suffragette

:kick: for more information on this issue.

[suffragette]

78. Thanks. I found the part about them letting the court handle conflicting decisions

particularly interesting since I've seen that argument come up more frequently recently.

Guess it's ok to let a decision stand and let the court sort out conflicting opinions itself when it's an Abramoff and RNC connected Congress member (now former, but free to resurface) but it's to the mat with a fast appeal when it's patriotic LBGT who wish to serve openly.

Fairly decent recount of Feeney & Abramoff connections here:
http://www.fladems.com/page/content/feeney/

[sabrina 1]

79. That is an excellent point. Someone in my thread made

the argument about conflicting court opinions. But this answers it. I will bookmark that link, thank you. Excellent information here. Nice work, suffragette :-)

Oh yes, and you are right about the different standards. Very disturbing.

[suffragette]

80. Clearly different standards

and, yes, very disturbing.

[Unvanguard]

73. Like those you criticize, you oversimplify a bit.

You're right that no ruling has to be appealed, and that the vast majority of them are not. However, if we are concerned with the tiny subset of rulings facially invalidating whole, significant, Congressional statutes, they are almost invariably appealed, and rightly so. More generally, while there is always discretion over whether to appeal, there are good reasons and bad reasons to decline to appeal. Generally speaking, opposition to a law is a bad reason: the executive branch's job is to faithfully execute all of Congress's laws, not just the ones it likes.

Perhaps more importantly, it is true that the DOJ does not defend (and should not defend) constitutionally-indefensible laws. The standard, however, is not the abstract question of where the best argument lies; rather, it has to do with the actual case law, with how the issues at stake have been treated in the courts. Over the long term, military exclusion of gays has been repeatedly upheld by the federal court system--mostly prior to Lawrence v. Texas, but not exclusively. Even the most favorable ruling prior to this one, Witt v. Department of the Air Force, was far narrower. The current legal protections against sexual orientation discrimination are very weak; the current legal traditions of deference to the military are very strong. This reality makes the legal case for a DOJ refusal to defend rather weak.

There is a political, policy argument for refusing to defend DADT. I think that argument carries the day in the end: the Obama DOJ was wrong to seek a stay and is wrong to appeal. But in theory the DOJ's defense of Congressional statutes should not be subject to these sorts of policy considerations, or else the President could undermine the laws he is supposed to be obeying. There are valid objections of principle and proper procedure to a DOJ refusal to appeal.

[LiberalAndProud]

81. I was told that the DADT issue is about separation of powers.

I was almost willing to accept that as a valid reason for the appeal. Except that soon thereafter Mr. Holder is defending DOMA by filing an appeal against the correct judgment of the court. I can't see how the same argument could possibly apply in both cases.

Occam's razor cuts deep, because I truly wanted to believe that this President would be a passionate advocate for equal rights for all citizens.