Ted Olson: ‘It Would Be Appropriate’ For Administration Not To Appeal DADT Injunction

[democracy1st]

Last night, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily granted the government’s request to stay a federal district court’s injunction of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, potentially allowing the Pentagon to again ban gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. LGBT advocates and a growing number of Democrats had urged the White House not to appeal the ruling and this morning, Ted Olson — former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush — agreed with this emerging consensus:

“It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law,” said former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state attorney general have both declined to defend the law in court.

“I don’t know what is going through the Obama administration’s thought process on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Olson said. “It would be appropriate for them to say ‘the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.’”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/olson-injunction/

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Hasn't the president explained his rationale? I don't think Olson is any

more qualified than this president, when it comes to consitutional law. :shrug:

[Touchdown]

2. He isn't. Olsen just doesn't have anything to gain politically by being honest.

The President does.

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. I suppose "honesty" is subjective. You've chosen Olsen for this "single issue".

If we're talking about political gain, wouldn't it be to the president's political benefit to let the ruling stand? He has obviously taken the risk of further pissing off his GLBT critics, but he continues to make the case that this "law" should be repealed by the legislative branch.

Some have chosen to push people's emotional buttons with the issue, but can anyone seriously take issue with the president's desire for a permanent legislative repeal?

[Touchdown]

6. Not at all.

For the last year, Olsen has been in a two man team fighting against Prop 8 in California. His Partner in that is David Boies (sp?). He's got some history with GLBT legal issues. He's an authority on the subject.

I don't think the President believes that gays will not vote for him, so he has nothing to lose by pissing us off. The centrists and moderate Christians he knows he can lose if he pisses them off. I doubt he will lose any votes, and probably gain some if he just let the ruling stand, but he's not being advised by people who live outside the beltway.

Neither I, or any other DUer I've read here takes issue with a permanent legislative repeal. What we take issue with is his refusal to suspend discharges and investigations as CIC. We have a problem with his cherry picking fo what his justice dept. appeals and what it doesn't... and DADT just so happened to get stuck in the former. Totally unnecessary, and divisive. It reeks of political opportunism, especially before a midterm election, where the going narrative of "gay this n that" means lost seats. This isn't 1994 anymore.

There are many things he could've done as Commander in Chief to alleviate the effects of DADT, which would've sent a clear signal to the command structure that it's going to happen. Re-write the regs now, get used to it. Train your troops to accept it, etc. Let the court ruling stand. Send those new regs to congress, write them into a bill, repeal DADT, and the outright ban that's still on the books, and it's done. All of the sausage work the apologists are bringing up now, could've all been taken care of in preparation for DADT's inevitable legislative repeal, by executive orders. Now? With the prospect of more Repugs entering the Senate (either lowering our majority or taking it), the window of opportunity on this has passed, so DADT will stay until we take the Senate back by 67 votes to negate the Nelsons... or until we colonize Mars, whichever comes first.

We take issue with the idea that ONLY Congress should touch this and that the President is powerless, but that he wants it done. Talk is cheap. Judging by his actions over the last 2 years and especially Yesterday, I don't think he ever want's DADT gone.

[sabrina 1]

8. Very well said, Touchdown.

And now we learn that Gates has restricted who can dismiss Gay Troops to six civilian political appointees.

In effect, Obama has handed over HIS powers to issue an Executive Order to halt dismissals to Gates.

We were told only Congress could take such a step, we argued that his was not so. Now it appears we were right. The Sec. of Defense has just effectively limited the number of dismissals under DADT.

I guess they think they are being smart. I can imagine them, the DLCers who fear Repubican attacks more than anything in the world, advising Obama. 'YOU cannot be seen doing something that the right thinks will weaken the Military! They'll call you NAMES, like the dreaded 'Liberal' word! {{{shudder}}}

BUT, we are so smart, we figured out how you can appease those 'professional democrats' who are always whining, but now we need them, temporarily until after the election, AND, more importantly, keep our bi-partisan buddies on the Right from blaming YOU for Gays in the military. Let's let tough-guy, Bush appointee, Gates do it. Our Repub friends won't go after HIM! He's one of THEM. You know, like Nixon could do China etc. etc.'

What they've really done is make the president look weak. As CIC he could and should have issued an Executive Order, and he has the authority to do so. They have also blown their argument that only Congress can change a law. Gates just did it. Is HE more powerful than the President? Personally I think he is.

Anyhow, it is apparently going to get done, but when is the question. They are getting ready for it, because you know, you have to get ready for Gays invading the military. War zones, bombs etc. no problem, they can handle that 'on the fly'. But they cannot handle Gays serving openly 'on the fly'. That will take a lot of time for them to prepare for! :eyes:

[Smashcut]

9. Obama also said marriage is not a civil right, which the court in Loving v. Virginia

might take issue with.

Obama: "I don't think marriage is a civil right..."

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/vickilynne/gGBTGv

Loving Court: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

So it appears his take on constitutional law is somewhat...flexible when it suits him.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. Constitutional scholars can't disagree? That seems to be what's at issue.

Olsen disagrees with the president, right? For instance, I don't agree with Glenn Beck's, or Christine O'Donnell's take on the Constitution. It's called a disagreement, and likely one that the USSC will inevitably sort out. :shrug:

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[Bluebear]

5. It is, after everything, surprising where you find allies. nt

[Heidi]

7. Recommended.

:kick:

[golddigger]

11. K&R