COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE APPARENT DADT CONTRADICTION....

[NJmaverick]

So, what's the real story here? Why would Obama and his team fight to preserve a law they claim to oppose? It no doubt seems unsatisfying to those of us who abhor the policy -- and I really do -- but the AP has a compelling report on what the administration is thinking, and "they must secretly hate gays" isn't the correct explanation.

The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them.

This practice cuts across party lines. And it has caused serious heartburn for more than one attorney general.

The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others." ... On occasion, the Justice Department will even defend a law it knows is likely to be judged unconstitutional, said Seth Waxman, who served as President Bill Clinton's solicitor general.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026240.php#1839271

[The Philosopher]

1. Already been addressed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4582603

[EFerrari]

7. But this one is in caps!

[NJmaverick]

9. As is the original article

damn those pesky facts

[closeupready]

12. LOL - that means it's UBER-IMPORTANT!!! !!!11111!!!!!!

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

11. Completely different article

so what's your point?

[zipplewrath]

66. Actually it's not

It's the same basic points. They've been made, and argued, many times over the last few days. It all stems from the apparently strange predicament where the "fierce advocate" none the less is the only one running of to the courts to get the injuction reversed. He can appeal the ruling without reversing the injunction. Quite honestly, the court is doing for him, what his supporters frequently claim he is powerless to do. This order would suspend investigations and explusions until a higher court made its final ruling. Since we are told this will be over turned "this year" anyway, why bother working to reinstate the explusions?

[Ineeda]

13. Can't be said enough.

There are legitimate reasons for this process, but there are those who simply refuse to hear it and will continue to feel "betrayed" by a president who is, indeed, a fierce advocate. I've said it several times on this board - we should want this done right, not in a way that could be easily reversed, and certainly not the way GWB ignored or illegitimately changed laws.

[NJmaverick]

19. Some people are desperate to hide the facts

which is a shame because facts and truth are what we all need to deal with.

[joeybee12]

58. As you are, you're getting pathetic, you really, really are...

so many times facts slap you on the head and you walk away and deny them...pathetic.

[The Philosopher]

40. All those points

Have been proven false time and time again on this board and elsewhere. If we were to always do the opposite of GWB, we'd have to tell President Obama to stop breathing. The Constitution itself says the President has the right to defend or not defend laws, because he has the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Now, he does have to make arguments for the case. I think Obama is smart enough to make such arguments. So neither is it ignoring the law or illegitimately changing laws.

Here's a thought experiment. If a majority of candidates are elected into Congress, supported not by a minority of people but a majority, a strong majority, and that Congress passed with strong votes that child rape was legal, do you think the President would just twiddle his thumbs and wait for one of the minority voters to file a lawsuit? Do you think he would then defend against the lawsuit? No, he'd tell Congress what's what and force them to defend the law in court. Because that's his right.

There are no legitimate reasons for the appeal. There are only reasons And with each (and different) one we hear, we see that they're unreasonable.

[NJmaverick]

45. Your wish that they were false is not the same as being proven false

the facts have been confirmed and while the truth is inconvenient we can't ignore it. Morals and ethics are most challenged when we need to do things we don't want to do.

[The Philosopher]

64. See, what you did there is

Say I said something I didn't (that I wish something) and that your facts have been confirmed, when it's perfectly clear from the multitude of posts (with sources!) that they aren't confirmed nor truthful. That's a tactic that Republicans use, which is painting a false reality in a sound bite in order to sound correct and true when the total opposite is fact. I believe a certain former President's right-hand man has been caught doing the same. In fact, every Republican is caught doing that. So it's funny you should do it, since you advocate not being like the "Repukes."

[xchrom]

2. I'll stick w/ Ted. I hate him but he does a better job of

Sticking by us.

[NJmaverick]

6. Siding with Republicans

:puke:

[boston bean]

33. you against gay rights because a republican is fighting for them? nt

[NJmaverick]

42. I am for gay rights, but I am not about to side with the Republicans

as I know what their party stands for. YOU forget they tried to pass a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. YOU forget that they nominated unabashed homophobe Carl Paladino to be Governor of NY. YOU forget how the GOP has used GLBT issues as wedge issues to lead them to victory over and over and over again. Your lapses in memory are very serious

[boston bean]

49. Will you stand with Ted Olson in his fight for LGBT rights, or do you think you should trash

talk his efforts?

edit to add: not very pragmatic, but I guess pragmaticism is off the table when it comes to human rights!

[NJmaverick]

53. You are free to stand with the republicans but I will never do so

I will fight for LBGT rights without standing with the enemy.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

57. Ted Olson is still a republican and still an enemy of mankind

you are free to stand with him, but I will stand else where for my fight.

[boston bean]

60. I stand with anyone who stands for equal rights for LGBT.

edit: when it comes to equal rights, I can separate the issues.

I guess I am pragmatic afterall.

[NJmaverick]

122. I am completely different, I would never "stand" with Republicans

I will acknowledge when they state something correctly, but I will never ever "stand" with them

[boston bean]

130. Oh so now you want to take my support for LGBT rights and smear me because

a Republican happens to agree with me.

I do STAND with anyone who believes in equal rights. You are the one who won't stand with people who are fighting for LGBT rights.

As I said upthread, I can separate the issues. I don't stand with republicans, I stand with individuals who fight for equal rights. Talk about purity tests.

Again, I guess I am a pragmatist after all.

[Touchdown]

74. So you take the words of one Bush cronie over another

Simply because Cronie 1 agrees with you, and Cronie 2 does not. But you don't stop there. Because Cronie 2 does not agree with you, he is also an enemy of mankind.

Facts indeed!:rofl:

[Mimosa]

95. And David Boies =who is in partnership with Olsen on LGBT Constitutional rights - is an enemy?

N.J., I'd never thought I'd say you are disingenuous. On this issue you clerly are.

Explain how David Boies is 'standing with the enemy'. *rolling eyes*

[boston bean]

100. He has faith in the republican that replaced Ted Olsen. LOL nt

I'm laughing my ass off!

[NJmaverick]

123. Sorry I am not like you, I don't stand with or have faith in republicans

I will ONLY acknowledge when they state the facts correctly, which is quite different.

[boston bean]

126. So, you do stand with Ted Olsen? nt

[NJmaverick]

129. I never have and I never will ever stand with a Republican

that goes against every ethical and moral fiber. I will agree if they get something right, but that will never convince me to stand with them.

[boston bean]

132. But you won't agree that Ted Olsen got something right in Prop 8?

You need to go back and read your posts, and how all this got started.

[NJmaverick]

136. I can agree Olsen got something right when it came to GLBT rights, but that

doesn't mean I will start standing with him. I don't stand with Republicans

[boston bean]

139. It is not siding with Republicans. You are being obtuse.

It is acknowledging when someone is on the right (left) side of an issue.

Maybe you could be a tad more inventive when twisting yourself into a pretzel.

[NJmaverick]

152. You said repeatedly you "STAND" with the Republicans

that's far more than just agreeing with them on a point.

[boston bean]

153. I did, really?

:wtf:

[sabrina 1]

203. So if a Republican, like say, President Lincoln, happens to be right

about a serious issue, you will reject even facts, simply because he is Republican? Methinks you protest too much! :eyes:

[Touchdown]

78. Oh' but you did.

Or did I read this wrong?

"... says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general,"

Watch out! You might walk right into your own transparency.:rofl:

And as a gay man. Since you like "facts" so much, I can attest that you are not fighting for GLBT rights one fucking bit! The fact that you have the audacity to say you do is insulting at best.

[boston bean]

82. LOL!

They'll stand with the repug who wants to make excuses as to why DADT had to be appealed. But they won't stand with the repug that wants it not to be appealed.

hmmmmmm......:freak:

[donco6]

117. Does ANYONE need to see any more than this?

Really?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[boston bean]

107. Do you think njmav will COME TO GRIPS WITH THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION?? nt

[Touchdown]

113. Naw! That would take guts.

Some serious low hangers.

[donco6]

114. He's desperately trying to memory-hole this as we speak.

Can't have this much truth exposed to the world.

[NJmaverick]

150. That's a classic smackdown! LOL!

[Touchdown]

210. Think you're clever with that, don't you?

All it means is that you're worth laughing at on two websites. :hi:

[NJmaverick]

119. While you STAND with Republicans, I don't

[boston bean]

124. Right, you don't stand with the ones who are fighting for LGBT rights, that is true.

You regurgitate the talking points of the republicans whose arguments fit your agenda and weak argument.

[NJmaverick]

131. I stand with all the Democrats fighting for LGBT rights

not with the GOP, that's your thing

[boston bean]

140. So you think what Ted Olsen did in CA was a bad thing? You don't support him in those efforts.

[Touchdown]

149. As a gay man, I must sincerely ask a favor of you...

please stop helping us!

I mean that in the sincerest respect.

[Touchdown]

174. So so suck your toe, all the way to Mexico!

How old are you?

[jgraz]

188. How do you define the term "STAND with"?

And how is it different from you lovingly quoting Bush's Solicitor General?

[NJmaverick]

121. I don't stand with him, like you stand with Olsen

it's one thing to agree on an issue, it's quite another to "stand" with them.

[boston bean]

138. I stand with Ted Olsen in his fight for LGBT rights, you are the one who doesn't.

Do you agree with Ted Olsen in his fight for LGBT rights, or not?

[jgraz]

147. Explain the difference

(This oughtta be good)

[NJmaverick]

154. !

[Touchdown]

159. Meh. You're wrong.

It was lame. Where did he find that spanking the monkey emoticons though?

[jgraz]

160. You knew he wouldn't have an answer. The term is meaningless drivel.

[Touchdown]

151. Who said I stand with anybody.

C'mon. It's not hard to find out who. I'm the only one on DU with a chrome atheist avatar.

[laughingliberal]

226. +1,000,000 nt

[readmoreoften]

236. So, you're only for gay rights if it suits your team.

Once again, you don't stand for a political platform, you stand for a brand name. Congratulations. It's a tragedy that the Democrats are even to the right of some Republicans on LGBT issues. Disastrous political maneuvering.

[donco6]

246. I'm not even sure I'd go that far.

More like, "I'm for gay rights when I have to be. And so far I don't have to be."

[closeupready]

3. Unrecced.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

8. Your dislike of facts and the law is duly noted

[closeupready]

14. Your continued attempts to indoctrinate the membership of DU is duly noted.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

17. LOL!

:tinfoilhat:

[sabrina 1]

208. If you want facts, go

here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9364829

What you posted was opinion. If you are interested in facts, you will check them out in the above OP. Clinton exercised his discretion on a court ruling eg, did you know that?

If you want to defend Obama on this you will have to find another way. Saying he doesn't have a choice is simply false. I doubt I'll see you in that thread. But don't say no one gave you the facts, I just did.

[zipplewrath]

4. Yeah, this has been posted about 7 times today

It is a tad weak. We all understand the basic need of the justice department to defend laws from previous congress' and administrations. We also know that there are glowing exceptions. And the really odd part is not only does this one scream out for one of those exceptions, but that they were under no obligation to seek to overturn the injuction while they worked on their appeal. They apparently did so out of some pedantic desire to win the appeal at any cost.

[NJmaverick]

5. You really have got things totally wrong

we can't ignore the law. If we start doing that we become no better than the repukes.

[EFerrari]

10. Really? Then where is the prosecution of Bush for torture?

Under US and international law, Obama was obligated to immediately investigate and prosecute torture.

I guess we can ignore the law, sometimes.

[NJmaverick]

15. Eric Holder investigated

if he found nothing to prosecute...

[EFerrari]

24. Even you can't possibly believe that. Although, if I had a black site at Bagram

where prisoners were being abused, I might not want to jump into an investigation of prisoner torture, either.

[NJmaverick]

26. Sorry I don't share your baseless belief that Eric Holder is a liar

[EFerrari]

31. Liar is your term. Gee, there's a lot of that going around today.

:)

[Autumn]

72. Why must you pick on Holder? Saddam hid the

evidence of torture, along with the WMDs. Or it could have been Bin Laden :shrug: USA USA :patriot: :patriot:








:sarcasm:

[panzerfaust]

41. He found nothing 'cause as we all know "America Doesn't Torture"?

We have president Bush's WORD on that.

The government is under NO obligation to appeal every decision. It, the Obama administration, chose to appeal this one - along with those on illegal wiretaps, due process, etc etc...

Our current administration (the Obama administration) does have an obligation under international laws and treaties to which we are signatory to investigate the probable human rights violations and likely war crimes of the preceding administration.

This administration (the Obama administration) has, however chosen not to do that, but rather to continue the assault upon individual liberty, international law, gays, drug prohibition, and the American people which the previous administration carried out.

"Change" means something different from that which has gone before.

We are going to lose seats in this current election because the country now sees that the promise of "change" was empty. Poll after poll shows that about 60-70% of the country supports liberal ideas and values. Sadly, that number does not seem to include many democratic senators or representatives, and certainly does not include president Obama.

DADT would be history now, had not the current administration chosen to support it.

[JonLP24]

104. +1000

[G_j]

88. well now I've heard it all..

:crazy:

[dflprincess]

219. I'm sure we'll soon see that line repeated here over and over again

because if something is repeated often enough, people will start to believe it.

[closeupready]

16. Oh, please, that doesn't count, silly - nor do illegal wiretaps.

:sarcasm:

[bvar22]

167. Naw. That poster is going to stand with Republicans ...

..on the issue of not Prosecuting War Crimes,
just like Obama stood with Republicans on TARP and FISA.

[The Philosopher]

20. So

We should ignore the Constitution instead? Because it's in the Constitution the President's right to challenge the law, outlined by several Supreme Court opinions, law experts, and Attorney Generals.

I, for one, am not for ignoring the Constitution, even if that means challenging a piece of legislation passed by Congress.

Or, in order to cover for the DOJ and the President's handling of DADT, are we supposed to argue now that DADT is Constitutional? Yeah. Let's argue for that. Because that's not being like "Repukes" at all.

[NJmaverick]

23. Sorry we can't ignore the Constitution or the obligations of the

President and the AG. Like I said we are BETTER than the Repukes so we don't adopt their tactics.

[EFerrari]

32. Defending DADT is in fact ignorig the Constitution.

And using the Constitution to rationalize discrimination is a Republican tactic.

[NJmaverick]

The Constitution demands the President execute the laws

including ones he doesn't like. Sorry there is no way around that ethical and moral responsibility

[Touchdown]

65. DADT isn't a law anymore.

That's what it means by "Struck Down".:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

148. You need to keep up with the news

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

165. so when do we get the war crimes trials????????? or even investigations?

[Touchdown]

176. NJMav said Holder investigated, so it's a "FACT!!!"

NJMav has all the "FACTS!!!", just ask him.

[flyarm]

196. Nah My bullshit meter is on over load! eom

[Touchdown]

199. Welcome to the party.

You're not alone.

[The Philosopher]

227. The Constitution

actually says he's supposed to take care that laws are faithfully executed, not execute them. The Supreme Court has talked about the difference, which is why agencies in the Executive Branch can work without the President's direct action, but still fall under the President's supervision and power.

[The Philosopher]

51. Ugh

Again, the President is constitutionally allowed to challenge laws. If he has a reasonable argument for it and informs Congress in a reasonable amount of time, the Supreme Court, the DOJ (!), and several legal experts say he can challenge. That's his right. One would say, that is his obligation. The right to challenge upholds the Executive Branch's role as a balance to Congress. It's his obligation, when he is of the opinion Congress is wrong, to speak up. If a law is unconstitutional and the President believes the court will agree, he must challenge that law.

[flyarm]

164. how so? you do understand that the Geneva conventions are part of our constitution don't you ?

and war crimes have been committed with torture and renditions, that the entire world know took place..so what part of the Constitution is Obama Obeying and what part of the constitution is he defending and protecting our nation ? You know..the Oath he took to defend and protect our nation and the Constitution..

or do you ignore the parts you don't like?

[Touchdown]

22. ... It's just not for Hollywood anymore!

[zipplewrath]

105. We aren't ignoring the law

He has many options here, but he doesn't have to ask for the injuction to be suspended. There is nothing in the constitution requiring him to do so, and the military was ready to comply, and in fact had started to. There is also nothing in the constitution that requires him to appeal at all. It is merely a tradition, that is not always recognized. I can accept that he feels a certain obligation to at least appeal the judges ruling to an appeals court. Most of the rest of the assertions are just plain baseless. And if he were to refuse to appeal, the congress itself is more than capable of choosing to enter court and defend their law.

[flyarm]

162. oh yeah? How about Killing Americans because you are "SUSPECTED" of Terrorism?

no trial, no jury, no justice...only one the word of one man..this president!
Laws you say?

what laws..the laws being broken ?
What constitution? the one being shit upon by this president excactly like the previous one??????????

Obama Administration Claims Right to Kill Americans Suspected of Terrorism
by Jonathan Turley

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/04/is-the-obama-administration-targeting-americans/

Today in a congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. I discussed this story in the segment on MSNBC Countdown below.

In the hearing, Blair stated “e take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

The story raises serious legal questions. It is one thing to kill an American in the course of a terrorist act or to prevent an imminent attack. It is quite another thing to kill someone suspected of terrorism without a trial. That would amount to the assassination of a citizen.

Once again, the Obama Administration appears to be following Bush policies. In late 2002, Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a U.S. citizen, was killed in an attack by a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator in Yemen. The U.S. knew it was killing a U.S. citizen because it was monitoring his phone at the time. We were targeting Al Qaeda figures. One of the men was Abu Ali al-Harithi, suspected of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. After the attack, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a letter to the United States stating the attack “constitute a clear case of extrajudicial killing.”

[BzaDem]

18. In this case, an appeals court already upheld the exact same law at issue here.

The government can make an exception to its duty to defend laws when higher court precedent says the law is unconstitutional, or is ambiguous but leans that way.

But it can't make an exception when a higher court actually upheld the exact same law last year.

I agree with you about the stay though.

[zipplewrath]

35. Well, and I don't particularly begrudge them one appeal

They can take this to the next court. If nothing else they can at least file to take it to the next one. If things work out in the Senate they way we all hope, it may become OBE before they have to actually do it. But all this pointless talk about "taking it all the way" is a bit absurd. Win or lose at the next level, they can call it quits if for no other reason that it is fairly obvious that the overarching arch of history is going to rid us of this sooner or later, one way or another.

[zipplewrath]

37. I did NOT hit this twice

I get these "double posts" once and a bit and I still haven't figured out why. But there is ALWAYS a long load time when it happens.

[treestar]

89. Of course there has been no discussion of the exceptions and

the basis for them. Conveniently ignored.

[Touchdown]

21. Give it a rest. The turd is polished now.

[NJmaverick]

28. Sorry no matter how you order, demand or stomp your feet

I will not help you hide the facts

[Touchdown]

30. Then give us some facts for a change.

Not some Repug's conjecture.

[NJmaverick]

38. You really should read the article

[Touchdown]

43. I did.

No facts presented. You stating there are facts does not make your dreamworld reality.

Here is a fact. You are not doing this because you have respect for the Constitution or the law. You posted this to stick it in the eyes of people who diss the President, and you hate that with all of your bile.

[NJmaverick]

61. Then you need to read it again, because there were plenty of facts

just because you didn't like them, doesn't negate their existence.

[Touchdown]

69. There are no facts. There is only your faith that they are there.

[NJmaverick]

125. Sorry but the facts say you're wrong

[Touchdown]

156. Don't be sorry. Just be gone

Stop helping us gay people. You are really bad at it.

[closeupready]

109. That last sentence is the only thing NJMav ever posts. & from the net recs, it looks effective.

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

108. The DOJ has discretion not to repeal a case and did so

in the same week it appealed the injunction against DADT. Really you should do research before depending on selected articles like this hoping to excuse what this WH has done.

'The Justice Department declined to appeal the ruling'


By Ed O'Keefe

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 15, 2010; A18

Small groups wishing to gather at national parks, including the Mall in Washington, no longer need to obtain a permit from the National Park Service, it was announced Thursday.

Organizers of larger demonstrations, concerts or religious ceremonies expected to draw more than a few dozen people - including comedian Jon Stewart's rally on the Mall scheduled for Oct. 30 - must still apply to the Park Service for the use of government space.

The change officially took effect Thursday and "allows for the spontaneity of First Amendment activities, preserving citizens' rights to free speech while allowing the National Park Service to protect the resources entrusted to our care," Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service's regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment-protected activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency's policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.

The Justice Department declined to appeal the ruling.

Your OP is opinion. Facts prove that opinion to be wrong. I can and will post other examples of when the DOJ exercised its discretion to appeal a court ruling.

But this one was decided the same week that the DOJ appealed the ruling on DADT so I thought it was relevent. Selectively appealing cases does give us an idea of where any administration stands on issues. I think we are pretty clear on where this one stands on DADT.

[readmoreoften]

238. "Foot stomping": it's the new pony!

[Cha]

25. Thanks Maverick, I like reading Steve Benen's

analysis. Some of the comments are interesting to me, like this one..

"The last time I checked, the Administration's job was, is, and will always be going to bat for the Laws as they stand on the books, and fight for those Laws right up through the Supremes.

Maybe it's just my imagination---but didn't we recently spend eight years' worth of our time and effort dealing with an Administration who would use the Courts for their own political agenda? I'm not too anxious to have the current WH take on the mantle of "Karl Rove's Mirror Image."

Fight this thing through to the Supremes, and let THEM uphold the lower ruling. It's the only legitimate avenue, given the current functional-as-roadkill attitudes in the Congress, to truly eliminate DADT once and for all. Otherwise, we're not one damned bit better than the Bushylvanians, and if we're going to act like them, then we deserve the consequences of becoming them.

Period."

[NJmaverick]

134. I just don't understand how people can spend 8 years fighting against how Bush conducted his

presidency and then turn around and suggest that President Obama act the same way.

[zipplewrath]

192. They aren't

Which may explain your lack of understanding.

[BzaDem]

27. K&R.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Five Words

Obama is not the 'Decider'

And no President/Executive Administration should try to take a shortcut that could be unraveled by a change in leadership in any of our three branches of Gov't.

[EFerrari]

34. He sure was The Decider that is appealing a ruling that he could have left alone.

This is totally on him.

[PBS Poll-435]

36. Then what? Some idiot in the 5th Circuit decides differently on a similar case

Men & Women are fired from the military because of the contradiction.

Nobody understands the policy in different states.



This is fucking stupid.

[EFerrari]

44. This is not a policy that applies to the states but to the Pentagon.

As it is, Obama is opening a can of worms that he can't put back and it was his choice to do that.

Were he serious about DADT, he'd have left this ruling stand, remove the greater immediate harm, and get to work on Congress.

[NJmaverick]

50. Advocating for a liberal version of George Bush is a bad idea

it makes us look hypocritical. We liberals need to obey the law and follow the Constitution even if it's not what we want to do.

[EFerrari]

56. Arguing a fictional authoritarian position is a worse idea. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

52. You are wrong on this. The PRESIDENT (not 'Obama') and his administration are laying the groundwork

for a PERMANENT end to DADT.

If you are more comfortable with a possibly temporary "fix" to this issue then God bless ya.


I guess our GLTB friends can have a few years before they have to sit in the back of the bus.

[EFerrari]

63. Since Obama controls neither the courts nor Congress

he can't claim to be doing anything of the sort. What he is doing is laying DADT open to the facist SCOTUS we have right now.

[PBS Poll-435]

70. Facepalm (again). Since DADT was enacted by Congress (and held SCOTUS muster for 17 years)...

Congress needs to fix it Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654).

And precedent of a sitting President and his AG letting a District Judge in California determine worldwide US Military policy is absurd.

[EFerrari]

75. The idea that a President has to defend discrimination is fatuous. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

79. Please rent School House Rock before your local Blockbuster closes. nt

[EFerrari]

84. You might want to take your own advice since you seem to basically

not understand what the oath that Obama took means.

[PBS Poll-435]

92. Absurd. The President took an oath to defend The Constitution which has 3 co-equal branches...

Would you feel the same if Bush got drunk and had signed an executive order (or not appealed a District case) allowing paroled murderers be given their guns back when they leave their prison?



This MUST be done through Congress to be lasting.

[EFerrari]

102. Hot air. The President swore to uphold the Constitution

which makes equality for all Americans the law in this country.

There is no getting around that. There is no Bush getting drunk and taking your parking place or Congress does it better or it won't count unless you pinky swear.

He swore he would uphold the Constitution, not the latest strategery his team comes up with to promote his career.

[PBS Poll-435]

106. Yes. He swore to uphold the Constitution. Congress made the law, they need to repeal it

The President is not a king. He can not circumvent the Judiciary nor Congress for expediency.

We know this matter is urgent, but doing what you suggest is, by definition, unconstitutional.

[BzaDem]

111. I guess that's the fundamental point where you are wrong. Our intuitive conception of equality

is not at ALL equivalent to the Supreme Court's conception of equality. Yet.

Under the Supreme Court's conception of equality (and appeals court precedent), DADT is entirely constitutional.

That needs to change as soon as possible. But until it does, under our system of government, the Supreme Court's conception of equality controls (not ours). Under current higher court case law, DADT is unambiguously constitutional (even though we don't like it).

[boston bean]

112. DADT is "unambiguously" constitutional? Really? I thought a judge just said it wasn't.

Do you believe DADT is constitutional?

I've never believed it was constitutional.

Just because congress made some law, doesn't mean it's constitutional.

[BzaDem]

120. A lower court said it wasn't. But an appeals court already held that it was last year.

In our system of government, appeals court rulings trump lower court rulings.

I personally do not believe DADT is constitutional. But my beliefs are not relevant to the current status of case law, and the current status of case law says that DADT is Constitutional.

[boston bean]

141. Because a court upheld it as constutitional does not make it so.

Just as the reverse does not make it so.

Laws are challenged everday as to whether they are constitutional or not.

The supreme court will decide this and what will Obama do then, fight it like he is now, because there is a law.

[BzaDem]

142. Actually, it does.

In our system, appeals court rulings control over lower court rulings, and Supreme court rulings control over appeals court rulings. We could disagree, but that doesn't change case law.

This isn't to say that an appeals court can't overrule its own past decision. That happens all the time. But until that happens, their decision controls.

[boston bean]

143. So it will most likely go to the Supreme Court, just as I said.

pray tell, what will obama do then?

Also, do you think he will get DADT repealed in a lame duck session this Nov or Dec?

And if the Supreme Court decides not to hear it, and there is no change in the law, we are at the same place. But atleast the full force of the executive branch would be fighting for the community.

And if the Supreme Court decides to hear it and rules in a ghastly fashion and Obama defends it, WTF will happen then.

You are putting all your apples in the cart of a legislative overturn of DADT. That is very dangerous.

If Obama did not appeal this ruling and fight to keep DADT, there would be a better chance of overthrowing it in the Supreme Court, but the executive branch has decided to keep DADT alive. For what?

[BzaDem]

222. I am not throwing my apples into any cart.

I am simply stating that in the abstract, if an appeals court upholds a given statute, the administration is obligated to appeal a district court ruling throwing out the statute.

To not appeal would make a mockery of the rule of law, and allow Republicans to attack any law in the future by simply not challenging rulings upholding Social Security/Medicare/etc.

This problem is not new. When McCain-Feingold was past, the Bush DOJ defended it vigorously. So vigorously that they actually won a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court in 2003 upholding basically the entire law. This was even though Bush said (when he signed it) that he didn't really think it was Constitutional.

This is not about DADT. This is about democracy and the rule of law. I hope that the appeals court agrees with the district court and throws out DADT (if not in the 3 judge panel, then in the larger en banc panel), but the appeals court must be allowed to decide.

[Ineeda]

48. Exactly. That's a key fact that so many are ignoring.

Another appellate court can keep this in limbo.

[EFerrari]

77. No one is ignoring that "key fact".

What the Obama DoJ has done is to make DADT *more* vulnerable to that process, not *less* vulnerable.

[NJmaverick]

47. No if he had wanted to act like George Bush he would have ignored his oath

and Constitutional responsibilities like you are calling on him to do.

[treestar]

91. No he could not have left it alone

They only leave it alone when there is no viable argument.

[NJmaverick]

39. Those are 5 powerful words

and ones we need to remember before we lapse into hypocrisy

[EFerrari]

46. Obama is the president and the leader of the Democratic party.

He is The Decider in the action.

[PBS Poll-435]

55. Quite possibly the most horrifying words I have ever seen here

And it isn't Halloween yet.

[EFerrari]

73. He is the moving party of record.

There is no ditching the responsibility for this one.

[PBS Poll-435]

76. NOT HIS BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND CONGRESS IS IN RECESS

What in the hell are you expecting?

[EFerrari]

80. The motion was filed by the DoJ. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

85. Which I am sure that you know is the Executive Branch. Just like the President.

It is the responsibility of each branch to protect their turf. Checks and Balances...


"School House Rock", Now! Ignorance of the basic structure of the United States Government is NOT excusable.

[EFerrari]

90. Finally some honesty. Obama is protecting his turf

on the backs of Americans.

[PBS Poll-435]

94. The President is doing his best to follow the Constitution. Too many folks have watched...

factually inaccurate Aaron Sorkin movies.


Sad. :cry:

[EFerrari]

97. Pop culture really doesn't get you out of this one. I'm sorry. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

99. If you want The President to grab power unconstitutionally when our party is in power

And not when the other folks are in charge, then enjoy hypocrisy.

[treestar]

96. So now you are openly declaring the President a Decider

No, we didn't like it when Bush claimed it.

A President is not supposed to be all powerful.

[PBS Poll-435]

101. The President can do whatever he wants. He was elected by us, goddammit

:P

[Touchdown]

175. He is doing what he wants.

He doesn't want DADT repealed, no matter what he says when the cameras are rolling.

[flyarm]

197. ahh he was elected by us but he must honor the Oath he took to us..after all,.

he does WORK * FOR * US!

PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT LITTLE FACT. it is quite important.

and do go look up the oath he took to protect and defend the constitution!

[PBS Poll-435]

204. JFC - Until DADT and open service has been defined by the Supreme Court or CONGRESS then

We will have to wait for finality. The President IS following the Constitution.

[flyarm]

206. funny he didn't bother with this..........

DoJ Accused Of Hypocrisy For Appealing DADT While Letting Park Proselytizing Ruling Stand


DoJ Accused Of Hypocrisy For Appealing DADT While Letting Park Proselytizing Ruling Stand

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/doj-accused-of-hypocrisy-_n_771722.html

Sam Stein | Huffington Post | Updated: 10-21-10 02:28 PM

Less than a week before the Obama administration's Department of Justice appealed a judge's ruling that the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is unconstitutional, it elected to let stand a court ruling allowing religious groups to proselytize in federal parks.

In a little-noticed decision last Thursday, the DoJ let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that small groups wishing to gather and demonstrate at national parks no longer have to obtain a permit from the National Park Service. The Department's decision to let that ruling stand while challenging, days later, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' decision to overturn DADT on constitutional grounds are not topically related. But it did spur another round of criticism that the administration is either insensitive or hypocritical when it comes to gay rights.

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

xxxxxxxxx

and this court found DADT Un-constitutional..........

[PBS Poll-435]

215. I just can't respond to the willful ignorance regarding the legislative goal of repealing DADT

A clear priority of the President to affect lasting change rather than a table tennis match every time the White House changes hands.

Congress enacted it and Congress must fix it. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[NJmaverick]

155. He is the leader which is why he called for the repeal of DADT in his SOTUA

[PBS Poll-435]

205. And minus a few votes in the Senate would have achieved that in the reauthorization bill nt

[Touchdown]

59. He certainly decided on this.

:eyes:

[jobycom]

62. He has other options.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/breaking-clinton-admin-refused-to.html

The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them. But Walter Dellinger, who was solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said an appeal could make clear that the president believes the law is unconstitutional, an approach President Bill Clinton took in 1996 concerning a law that would have required the discharge of HIV-positive service members from the military.

http://smmercury.com/archives/14715

Diane Mazur, a professor of law at the University of Florida College of Law, has laid out in a legal memorandum the basics about executive discretion to decline to appeal laws held to be unconstitutional. Mazur’s primary areas of research include civil-military relations and military law generally. In her memorandum, she explains that the usual expectation is that the Justice department “will defend federal laws from constitutional challenge.” However, the usual practice is not mandatory: “There are well-recognized, standard exceptions that give the executive branch discretion in deciding whether or not to defend a law in some circumstances, and they would apply in deciding whether to appeal a court ruling finding that (DADT) is unconstitutional.”

The two most relevant exceptions to the general rule about defending a statute held to be unconstitutional occur “when the president believes the law intrudes upon his express constitutional authority, such as the commander-in-chief authority. In those instances, DOJ may decline to defend a law that reaches too broadly and inappropriately restricts, for example, the president’s ability to direct military forces.”

The second exception at play in this case occurs “when that defense would involve asking the Supreme Court to disregard or alter one of its constitutional rulings.” Such a ruling is found in the 2003 case noted in Judge Phillips’s opinion, Lawrence v. Texas, in which “the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects the liberty of all persons, straight and gay, to enter into private, intimate relationships without interference by the government, unless there is sufficient justification for government regulation.”

In addition to these two exceptions of the common practice of defending laws against holdings finding them unconstitutional, there are numerous examples of a failure to defend such laws in every administration for the last 60 years. In fact, the Justice department did not appeal a similar decision in 2008 because it did not think its legal position would be sufficiently strong. If the President believes that DADT harms national security, as he has said, it is within his prerogative to refuse to take an action detrimental to national security.

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

The bottom line is that this issue isn't important enough to President Obama for him to give it that much thought. He's not willing to risk his career on it. When Civil Rights was passed, LBJ said he had lost the South for the Democrats for a generation. Most Democrats have commented since then that it was worth it, that none of them would sacrifice the results to avoid the consequences. Obama doesn't feel that strongly about this issue. Yeah, yeah, it's the most important election ever, and all that. They have all been the most important election ever. It shows his priorities. You agree with his priorities. I don't. I don't see a point in winning power and using it only to cover your own hide. He's like the football coach who is so afraid of losing he won't take any chances. Invariably, such a coach, and such a president, loses.

[NJmaverick]

67. That last paragraph were full of outlandish claims that are not support

by a single fact or indicator

[jobycom]

68. You could not have possibly read that before posting your reply. nt

[NJmaverick]

127. Sorry if the speed I am capable of reading at, leaves you in awe

[jobycom]

135. Not awe. Doubt.

[Zenlitened]

83. Interesting post. Thanks.

If the President believes that DADT harms national security, as he has said, it is within his prerogative to refuse to take an action detrimental to national security.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. So rare that it only came up twice in Clement's brief tenure.

On rare occasions, Justice officials conclude there is no reasonable argument that can be made in defense of a federal law.

Clement recalled two instances during his tenure. One posed free speech problems, because it sought to prevent recipients of federal transportation money from running ads favoring legalization of some drugs. The other was an obscure 1800s statute dealing with licensing of salvage operations.

Free speech problems were a good enough reason but civil rights are not?

[walldude]

81. LOL...

As usual, contradicting your opinion in your OP with posts down thread. So the President has to defend laws made by Congress even if he doesn't like them because he has to abide by the Constitution. Even though the "law" was struck down as unconstitutional.

So which is it? Should Obama defend the Constitution or the Law? In this case he cannot do both as the law was finally ruled what it is, unconstitutional. Should he do what is politically expedient or should he stand up and do what is right?

I already know your answer, as usual it will amount to Fuck The Gays and their rights. Obama has to follow the "law".


Oh and your claim that Bush should not be prosecuted is a fucking joke. He violated the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, U.S. Law, and International law, openly and arrogantly, and for you to sit there and claim that because some fucking flunky like Holder, who listens quite well to his masters, says otherwise, you are embarrassing yourself, your country, and those laws you are so vehemently defending.

[EFerrari]

93. I'm going to do something more pleasant, like my taxes.

This is one DU train wreck I don't need to witness.

[bvar22]

171. Delete

*

[sabrina 1]

86. Already debunked, several times here.

Next excuse?

[treestar]

98. Then the "debunking" was debunked

People just refuse to listen.

[NJmaverick]

128. To some all that is needed to "debunk" the a point is they simply don't like it

[sabrina 1]

144. Examples of the debunking of the debunking please.

Sad too that people have to go to such lengths to defend something that ought to be easily defended. I would appreciate links to what you are referring to.

[Touchdown]

173. Don't hold your breath.

You will get links to opinion pieces and you will be told that those opinions are "FACTS" ... In all caps too!

[flyarm]

198. I think I have a yawn working on me!!..yep..yep..there it is! AHHHHHHHHHHH

please do wake me when there is a response.

[sabrina 1]

201. Yes, but I thought I'd give them a chance. In the meantime

I have provided absolute proof that the DOJ DOES have discretion not to appeal. I will await the rebuttals to this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9364829

You might find it interesting also. Seems there is no way to rebut so I guess that's why so far there has been no response to my request either here or in that OP. :-)

[TriMera]

212. Actually,

you'll probably get the guys from the evening shift.:hi:

[sabrina 1]

213. I'm ready with facts anytime they want to try.

I don't think anyone can deny that Clinton refused to appeal a ruling on a law, an amendment to which he considered to be unconstitutional. And so far, his decision has held.

But, I am open-minded so I will definitely read what they have to offer :-)

[treestar]

248. There are a zillion threads on this

With knowledgeable people explaining. Then another thread pops up, asking the same questions as if they'd never read the earlier ones.

[Scurrilous]

103. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Spazito]

110. Interesting read!

Thanks for posting this, it is well worth reading.

recommended.

[piratefish08]

115. so they are "upholding a long tradition" at the expense of civil rights.

makes perfect sense now. thanks for the caps.

[metapunditedgy]

116. LOL... If you like cognitive dissonance, have *I* got a talking point for you! n/t

[NJmaverick]

118. If I "like cognitive dissonance" I wouldn't have posted this factual article

instead I would be screaming about how President Obama hates gay people because he insists on doing the job he is required to do.

[ruggerson]

133. You forgot to include this part from the WP:

Indeed, Justice lawyers delayed their response to Phillips because the White House weighed in on the matter, according to a government official with knowledge of the situation. A couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling, this person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations. Failing to challenge the ruling would have had the effect of ending the policy.


Too bad the sane people in the WH lost the argument.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102100569.html

[laughingliberal]

137. +1 nt

[sabrina 1]

145. It helps to read the entire article. I am told that the debunking of

the claim that the DOJ has no discretion in appealing cases.

I think that makes it pretty clear that there was a choice. As you say, too bad the sane people lost.

[NJmaverick]

146. Weren't we against the White House influencing the Justice Deptment

when Bush was in charge?

[AtomicKitten]

158. Well that was then, silly. There are apparently NEW RULES!!! now that Dems are in charge. nt

[Touchdown]

161. Yeah. Torture and gay rights. Two issues exactly alike.

Insanity! :puke:

[AtomicKitten]

163. The expectation of WH interference re: this and the last administration is the point.

:puke: that somebody has to explain that to you.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

183. So you're calling me stupid. You are name calling.

The president does not have to defend this. You, nor anybody else has been able to prove that. Ever.

[ruggerson]

168. The White House always influences the DOJ on matters of political import

It happens in every administration. The AG is appointed by and reports to the President.

When the first brief in the Smelt case caused front page headlines and nationwide backlash, there were meetings at the WH with DOJ lawyers, administration officials and LGBT legal professionals.

They not only issued a new, tamed-way-down brief, but Obama issued a WH statement to go with it. There was coordination from beginninig to end. It even inspired Obama to hold a reception.

Every WH does this and there is nothing wrong with it.

In this particular case the WH lawyers advocating the correct position lost out to those who advocated for appeal. And I guarantee you the decision making process was mostly political.

[MrScorpio]

169. For eight long years, we had a president who neglected to do his constitutional duty...

And he was rightly chastised for it.

Now, we have a president who is doing his constitutional duty, IN SPITE of his disdain for laws which he's bound to defend...

But some feel that they have to chastise him for THAT as well.

Some people are never satisfied.

The mere fact that it had to wait until President Obama took office before the wheels were set in motion to get rid of DOMA and DADT should be telling indeed.

But I'm quite sure, that regardless of all the legal and political wrangling that so many people are up in arms about right now, full equality will get a huge boost in this country, once these anti-gay laws are fully and properly removed from the books.

Besides, if anything is worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time, instead of some half-assed fashion that could be easily undone in the future.

I'm just wondering why we're hearing this call for "When?" so loudly now, when it should have always been heard just as loudly from the beginning and why are some of Obama's critics are so very loud now, when their wishes are actually on the way to being fulfilled in the long run.

[AtomicKitten]

170. +1

[Touchdown]

172. He's not doing any constitutional duty with this. Give it a rest.

[MrScorpio]

179. That was the very point of the OP, he is doing is duty...

And I agree with that assessment.

[Touchdown]

180. I don't agree, and there are plenty of Const scholars to back me up as well.

So we are at an impasse. As a former solder who had to hide being gay, and getting into fights because others thought I was, or being threatened to be exposed, this is important to me. The only thing I can see from your side is a need to protect The Prez from any and all criticism, even if it means a few more gay soldiers are harassed and beaten up in the mean time.

Hope you sleep well.

[MrScorpio]

184. Things are well on their way to changing this very moment

It's not hard to see that, if one was not blind in other ways.

A process that properly removes these laws today, as provided by the Constitution, will provide concrete protection for gay service members in the future.

No one will ever have a leg to stand on to assault or harass ANYONE if, the president does his duty, (which he is) and all the processes by which DADT's removal is required will have taken place (which they are). Short cuts will not only undermine its removal by being ultimately weak and one sided, but it will add to any animosity towards gay and lesbian service members, with an accusation that they're receiving "special treatment" by a gay-friendly president.

That would give opponents to the Democrats and our president plenty of ammunition against us all in the long run. That is something that anyone who's claiming to be a "Democrat" would rather not see.

This is a process that's completely on the up and up and it is in the midst of removing DADT, both fairly and squarely.

By the way that this is being accomplished, it's leading to the conditions when gay and lesbian service members have the exact same equal right to openly serve as their straight counterparts, with absolutely no apprehension or fear for their safety or careers and NO bigoted anti-gay advocate will ever have any right or reason to say otherwise.

[Touchdown]

185. I don't agree with that either. Apparently you are tone deaf on this.

Did anything I said about my personal experience sink in? Obama Hates gay people!!!!

He will never repeal DADT. Ever!

[MrScorpio]

186. If Obama has an unimpeachable position of authority, as being compliant w/ The Constitution...

Then the anti gay bigots don't have a leg to stand on, as the process is going about dismantling DADT, as it already is.

It's just that simple.

Paranoia does everyone a disservice at this stage.

[Touchdown]

187. He doesn't have an "unimpeachable position" that's the point.

Africaaners also talked about "The Law" in the 1980s. What is your point?

Paranoia? Talk is cheap. From McClurkin during his campaign, through the dozens of slights and slaps in the face over the last 3 years, fand now this, his actions speak volumes.

[MrScorpio]

190. The only law that's in question here is US Constitutional Law

Faulty comparisons only serve to muddy the picture and are ultimately unconvincing.

The President has obligations that he swore an oath to uphold... So, it's quite a refreshing indeed to see those obligations honored, in comparison to the previous administration.

It's quite clear that his opponents are willing to come at him from various positions of argument, in any regard.

[Touchdown]

191. He's not meeting those obligations, then. Pushing Jesus in national parks is not being appealed.

It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. He delays this until the new congress gets in, then he can blame the repugs for not repealing DADT so he gets to keep it with clean hands and a campaign issue for those people who easily forget to run on in 2012.

[MrScorpio]

193. An axe to grind can reveal itself in a lot different ways...

But, I'd rather that DU be a haven for calmly worded facts and strong support for Democrats, instead of the dizzying array of speculation that one can witness anywhere else on the Internet.

[Touchdown]

194. You're not gay. You can't see it for what it is

The administration's behavior is subtle and equivocating, but it is obvious to any glbt person who's paying attention.

This isn't a slight on you. I could never presume to tell African Americans that their over reacting to racism, when they see what I need to be educated to see, as a white guy.

The difference is that you haven't asked us gay people anything. You would rather tell us what we should think.

[MrScorpio]

200. Our Constitution serves and protects each of us, regardless of any demographic

By following the processes laid down in it, The President serves to ensure that Full Equality will eventually occur in the best way possible.

My perspective is from someone, who supports him... Yes, of course... And from that of a Democrat, most definitely, but mostly it's my perspective as someone who wants to achieve the best result possible when it comes to welcoming a new era of Full Equality in America, as the way in which I construct my own point of view.

That's exactly how I see the OP as well.

I understand that there is a right way to do things, and despite the fact that it may take a little longer in the long run, it's much more desirable than any of the haphazard and amateurish "feel good" alternatives which seem to come from a variety of sources.

The President's intentions need not be sullied with an absence of sound reason, or misrepresented by unfair allegations, hyperbole or epithets.

[Touchdown]

202. Still telling me what I'm supposed to think.

Have fun with that. Dismissiveness is not a virtue. Having a legal belief that just so coiknidikily leaves your man "unimpeachable" just means that you are closed off to any other argument. Hero worship is a strong emotion.

[MrScorpio]

207. We are all free to form our own opinions...

As well as use any motivation to form them.

We're all adults, after all.

I've stated that I agree with the reasoning behind the OP and I'm not swayed by argument to the contrary at this stage in the game.

Others may also do as they will and endorsements are moot, of course.

[Touchdown]

211. How very level headed and adult sounding.

I'll welcome you to the party when it's your face that gets slapped.:hi:

[MrScorpio]

214. I doubt that my tone will alter in any regard.

We are in the midst of quite a profound change in America... Change that's bringing Full Equality with it.

I've never doubted that THE big tent party like ours and the President that leads it, with all of the requisite wrinkles, would be the catalyst for such a change.

I have no qualms about maintaining my own stance, nor do I see any prospect in the near future that it will be any different.

[Touchdown]

228. I'm sure it won't

... which makes it sound all the more dismissive and condescending.

[MrScorpio]

231. Well, unlike the alternative...

I feel that there's always room for "level headed and adult sounding" discourse in this world, as well as optimism about positive changes that are going on as we speak.

And frankly, I'm very proud to say that it's Democrats who are leading this change in America today.

I have no doubt that, as long as that positive change is occurring, we all do well to reflect on it in a clear minded fashion.

A constant refrain that "the sky is falling" becomes very tiresome indeed, especially when the opposite is true.

[Touchdown]

232. I would just like to have more of that discourse with you

and less of the sermon. Get my drift?

I see no positive changes, either now or on the way for GLBT Americans. You apparently do. I have no idea how though.

I am not proud of the Democrats as they are not leading the change where it concerns GLBT rights and equality. Once again it's the activist core and gay community that is leading the charge with demands, and the Obama supporters are trying to surpress that, on this forum too. But on DADT... we also had more than a little help from the Republican group called Log Cabin. It was them that got the judge to declare DADT unconstitutional, and prompted Obama to show his true colors and appeal it. So I also don't know where your getting this "Democrats are leading this change" from.

Always think positive is snake oil, peddled by Tony Robbins, Zig Ziggler and the rest of those "Positive thinking" parasites, designed to shield us from reality and pretend if we are positive enough, we'll be skinny, rich, and beautiful, and if none of that happens it's the individual's fault, not Tony's. Looking at events honestly is not"the sky is falling" as you so reliably, condescendingly put it. It's seeing things as they are, and the opposite is not true... no matter how many times it's repeated, or how many BOGgers repeat it.

[MrScorpio]

233. You know, I have a very close cousin, whom I love very much... like a sister

She's also an honorably discharged marine who helped me very much when I was choosing which branch of service to enlist in.

She suggested that I not join the Marines and go for the Air Force instead, which I did of course. From her perspective as a marine and of me, her own favorite cousin, she knew that the Air Force would be a much better fit for me. She was quite correct in her assessment.

Today, long after her tour of duty is over, she's a happy, well adjusted woman who's currently living with her life partner, another woman who is also happy and well adjusted indeed.

There's nothing that my cousin and I can't talk about; family, friends, work, the local topics of the day, anything at all. I trust her judgement and opinion very much. I do today, as I've always have. She does the same for me as well, and it's a love and trust that we've had for each other since were kids.

So, I'm going to take you at your word, Touchdown, when you tell me that you believe that the Democrats and the President aren't beneficial at all, when it comes to making full equality possible for GBLT Americans today. I'll even suggest to her, as you have just done to me right now, that we should actually be thanking the Republicans for the way by which that DADT is apparently going the way of the dinosaurs. She's very opinionated, by the way (I've always loved that about her), so I'm sure that she'll tell me exactly what she thinks.

Of course, you may wonder why something like this has never come up before...Well, frankly because we both felt that it never needed to, since we're usually talking about family, friends, work, the local topics of the day and all.

In regards to one's own opinion about positive thought, or of the President himself, or of the Democrats, or of the Republicans, or of the "BOGers" (I assume that that was a reference the President's supporters in the Barack Obama Group, which I've never been a member of and never even had posted in), I've always appreciated the fact that all of us, as DUers, are quite fond of our own opinions, even if they sometimes disagree with each other.

As long as all posters set civil tone, basically anything can be said in this place (up to a certain point, of course).

It's what make DU DU, after all.

I, for one, see this appeals process as the tool by which DADT will be legitimately and eventually destroyed in the long run, as it rightfully should be. Because as MLK once said, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice".

That's the kind of positive thinking that benefits us all.

[Touchdown]

237. If you tell your cousin that, you will not be using my words.

Do not put them into my mouth.

Obama made a promise. So far he is breaking it. I am not optimistic that he will fullfil it.
The Repugs are trash. I know that to be true. But there are a handful (Olsen/ Log Cabin on the DADT lawsuit) who do good, and they should be acknowledged.
I didn't say the Democrats aren't beneficial at all. They try, but not hard enough. The President OTOH, you are correct about my opinion on him. My third post to you should've confirmed that. As far as GLBT issues are concerned, he's nothing but hot air.

That is not to say that I don't approve of everything he's done or his agenda going forward. Much of it I do approve of, save Health Care reform which I'm in a large group in that camp.

If you are going to twist my words into some pejorative indictment, run it by a family member for talking points, and come back and use them on me, then you really don't want to "set a civil tone". You want to play gotcha games.

The talk about having disagreements I can live with. Your last sentence though... I told you no once. I know how sales pitches work. Do not overcome my objection. I'm not buying. Stop trying to sell me on "positive thinking".

[MrScorpio]

239. Well even a broken clock is right at least twice a day

No matter whose wall it hangs on.

[Touchdown]

240. Uh. Okay. When you walk through the rose garden of life...

watch out for the pricks.

[MrScorpio]

241. Experience is the best teacher.

Cliches aside, the next time I'm with her and I'm probably going to have my iPod touch with me.

So, I'll ask her to take a look at some of the posts from some of our most prominent GLBT members and see what she says.

As you say, your own words are the ones to be considered.

[Terra Alta]

177. In the case of civil rights, some laws must not be defended.

This is one of them.. to deny LGBT people the right to serve in the armed forces is a civil rights issue and one that should NOT be defended, no matter what the law says.

[Catherina]

178. This is what you drag out? George W. Bush's solicitor general?

:wow:

:wtf:

[Touchdown]

181. But he's not "Standing with him" that's different!

:rofl: Standing with him means... You're gay!

[jgraz]

189. Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

[Jakes Progress]

195. Oooohhh. All caps and selected quotes. Try this link instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/doj-accused-of-hypocrisy-_n_771722.html

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

Why is it that so many are all hepped up that Obama must, absolutely must because his hands are tied, look to reestablish DADT, but don't give a rat's ass whether he prosecutes actual criminals like Rove and Cheney. They get a pass, but those pesky gays need to get in their place.

So stop the meme that Obama had no choice. He had a choice and he made it.

[walldude]

216. It certainly is confusing why all these "supporters"

aren't willing to do any supporting unless it's done the way they deem it "proper".


Pretty telling how much time one is willing to spend proving to gays how wrong they supposedly are.

[donco6]

223. Honestly, doesn't it make you wonder about a LOT of things?

Why would Obama be so Desperate to have this his way? He's practically falling on his sword over it, as evidenced by these, his followers. Is it really worth so much when it's not even a politically popular decision? What is his motive?

[Jakes Progress]

244. Morally confused and Politically inept.

Those are my guesses. Okay. Maybe morally compromised. But definitely inept when it comes to winning against anyone other than their own party or a corpse and an illiterate tart.

[Jakes Progress]

245. Notice the cricket response.

[cherokeeprogressive]

209. You must be pretty limber...

I've never seen anyone who could twist themself into three different 16-dimensional pretzels at once. Until now that is.

[jgraz]

218. It's easier to play 16-dimensional chess that way.

:P

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[inna]

217. appalling and insulting to intelligence/humanity

[donco6]

220. This thread is so indicative of everything that's wrong with DU.

It makes me ache.

[Tx4obama]

221. DADT UPDATE: Breaking News: Gates narrows who can OK discharges under 'don't ask, don't tell'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4583640

[katandmoon]

224. And Obama can come to grips with my failure to vote for him in 2012.

[donheld]

225. Ever walk down a sidewalk and happen on a pile of shit?

I've walked down the DU sidewalk tonight and encountered the exact same pile of shit posted several times. :grr: Enough!

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[jonnyblitz]

235. LMFAO!!

:D

[Canuckistanian]

234. Does that principle also extend to laws deemed unconstitutional?

It seems to me like the administration is on shaky ground where "tradition" is concerned.

[KossackRealityCheck]

242. "Sarah Palin's DOJ declines to defend Clean Water Act" nt

[Touchdown]

251. Broken Record. Fear mongering only works on Repubs.

Try again.

[Prism]

243. A face palm and a faceplant all in the same thread

Super job. Really, just stellar.

[TexasObserver]

247. Unrecommended because it is untrue.

Sometimes the executive doesn't choose to appeal after losing a case.

They aren't appealing because they feel a duty to appeal.

They're appealing so the president doesn't have to take the responsibility for DADT falling.

[myrna minx]

249. I think I've lost IQ point reading this thread.

:wow: The twisted logic to prevent universal human rights is astonishing.

[closeupready]

250. LOL (looking at net recs compared to # of replies).

:rofl: