"You can either end it, or stop saying that you will"

[NorthCarolina]

Rachel Maddow to the Administration on DADT. Rachel is THE BEST!

[rurallib]

1. Obama wants it ended under his admin in such a way that he gets

all credit and no blame or said another way something that can't happen.

[MadMaddie]

3. I am just curious has it ever occurred to you that maybe he

wants it done right so the next Republican administration whether it's 2, 4, 8 or 12 years from now can't come in and overturn it with the swish of a pen? Is that what we should hang our hats on?

Rachal was right on for most of her show. I agree that this law should have been done away with by Congress years ago but I argue that I don't believe it is worth doing it sloppy and leaving the gate open for the Republicans and the Religous zeolots to simply dismiss?

[rurallib]

8. yes, but he is sure playing some odd games in doing so.

[Diamonique]

2. GO RACHEL!

[dgibby]

4. OMG!

She was astounding tonight! Looks like she's more than just a little fed up with talking the talk but not walking the walk.

[NorthCarolina]

5. Rachel speaks truth to politicking. eom

[Catshrink]

6. "Try not. Do. Or do not.

There is no try."

[frazzled]

7. Stopping dismissals by not enforcing it wouldn't end it

That's the problem (and Obama understands it). The law would still be on the books: it was passed by Congress and would still be a law, just not enforced. He wants the law to be repealed. That would end it. Now, let's get Congress to cooperate.

[Dragonfli]

9. It could on the other hand, save the careers of countless brave Americans

While awaiting whatever political solution the Administration would consider "polite" to their more bigoted supporters.

There is no reason to enforce an unconstitutional law while awaiting the extra special preferred solution,
now really, come on man
is there?

edit spelling

[frazzled]

10. It has nothing to do with "polite" political solutions

It's about overturning a law that is unconstitutional. No one wants to see DADT repealed more than I do: I thought it was horrendous when Clinton signed it into law back in 1992 (plus, it makes no sense). I understand the judge's decision (though it seems to me that a single federal judge directing the federal government what to do, even in the face of a (bad) law probably needs to go to the Supreme Court; I'm not sure what the ramifications would be for other federal issues in the future, which we might not like). Rulings like this might possibly help push Congress toward lifting the law. Then again, it might only make those who want to keep it dig in their heels deeper, and we will get no repeal. In my book, the only just solution is for Congress to repeal the law or the Supreme Court to rule the law unconstitutional. But it must come off the books.

In terms of short-term solutions, however, I've actually got a better idea for ending it quickly, based on the equal protection clause: extend DADT to all members of the military, straight or gay. Anyone who admits to sexual activity or is found to have engaged in same, gets dismissed. There would be no military in about ... ten minutes. Law rescinded. End of story.