"Fierce Advocate" Wants Court to Reconsider Immediate DADT Halt

[Bluebear]

Last week, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in San Francisco ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy immediately. Now, the Obama administration is asking them to reconsider, saying that their order disrupts the government's "orderly process" of rolling back the 17-year-old ban on gays in the military. "Congress made quite clear that it believed the terms of the transition were critical to the credibility and success of this historic policy change, and to ensure continued military effectiveness," said the Department of Justice in a statement. "Any court-ordered action forced upon the military services so close to the completion of this repeal policy pre-empts the deliberate process established by Congress and the President to ensure an orderly and successful transition of this significant policy change."

The lawsuit originates with the Log Cabin Republicans who said that the DADT policy was unconstitutional. Last week's ruling to halt the policy's enforcement right away was a victory the Log Cabin Republicans, and this week, they don't seem happy about the setback. "This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform,” said the organization's executive director and combat veteran R. Clarke Cooper in a statement. "It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/obama-administration-wants-court-reconsider-immediate-dadt-halt/40023/

[Bluebear]

1. .

.

[sabrina 1]

2. Rec'd ~

I don't get the reason for delaying this. When the ruling came down from a different court stating that DADT was unconstitutional and the ban was lifted for a week or so, the military went right on as always, and nothing happened. As someone said at the time who was in Afghanistan I believe, the soldiers were barely aware of it as they have more important things to think of.

So, how come they need 'time' to 'adjust' when it appears they were already adjusted?

[Bluebear]

3. It's disgraceful. And still we hear here "Obama repealed DADT!!!1"

while still acting to keep it on life support, as the press release says.

[QC]

4. It's double-reverse-jujitsu chess.

Soon, very soon, it will all come together....

[Bluebear]

5. The stars all have to align. Perfectly.

[amborin]

16. +1

[sabrina 1]

6. When the first court rulled it unconstitutional and the ban was lifted

people were warned not to come out too soon as there was a fear that the ruling might be overturned (I did some research at the time to see what powers the president had to make it stick, at least until the next election and found that he could have done that. I wrote it up in an OP with the relevant laws at the time).

The argument was that he did not want it to be temporary, although after two years it would have been difficult to change it again, and wanted Congress to rescind it.

What is the situation now for Gays who come out? Can they be thrown out of the military still, and if so why, if the law has been overturned?

[Bluebear]

7. To quote the Log Cabin Republicans (I know....)

"The motion that the government filed today has no other purpose than to request - on an emergency basis - that the military be permitted to investigate and discharge servicemembers, and block new enlistments, based solely on those individuals' sexuality,” said Dan Woods, partner of White & Case and lead attorney in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. “The government's request is inexplicable on any other basis."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/07/breaking-govt-asks-9th-circuit-to-reverse-order-which-halted-dadt-discharges.html#ixzz1SFPIT7SN

[sabrina 1]

8. That doesn't make sense, if it's the law then I don't see how

someone can be let go based on their sexuality, and if they are, I would think they could sue. Not saying he's wrong, and I have not read the motion, but I would think that if Congress passes a law that should be that.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

9. Does anything good this President does every actually take effect?

Don't Ask Don't Tell is ending, when the time is right. We're leaving Iraq, eventually. We're reforming the health insurance system, in 2014. The pain is all up front, but the reward is all on the horizon. It's like there's a carrot dangling in front of our noses, just waiting to be ripped away.

[Poll_Blind]

10. That's a really fucking good question. I guess we'll find out after the election, right?

Right? My House rep., a guy I've voted for since '95 and the best damned Democratic representative, IMO, says the President needs to start acting like a Democrat. My senator just filed paperwork with another Democratic senator requesting the Obama administration explain their tracking of US citizens through cellphones and GPS.

From where I'm standing and from what I've seen, I'll throw in with my senator and House representative.

PB

[piratefish08]

15. shame how the most powerful man in our country is constantly outmaneuvered.

i'm sure it's all happening without his knowledge and consent.

it gets exhausting.


:hi:

[Bonobo]

11. Why do you want Michelle Bachman to be president, Bluebear? nt

[xchrom]

12. That's fucked up. Nt

[Poll_Blind]

13. Ugh....

PB

[treestar]

14. Court proceedings are confusing

someone take the time to figure out what is going on here - well, it would take hours.

There's obviously a sub-issue. But we're never going to find out what it is on DU.

[sabrina 1]

19. Why did it end up in court in the first place? Congress passed

a law, that should be the end of it. Any confusion about that seems manufactured. Does this happen every time Congress passes a law?

[LooseWilly]

22. The law doesn't go into effect until Pres. & SoD sign off...court ruling bars enforcement until then

Until the president and secretary of defense "sign off" on things being "arranged", the military continues to investigate and kick out (& apparently bar from enlisting) soldiers for being gay.

The court ruling bars the military from doing any of that... bars them from investigating or "separating" soldiers/marines/sailors/air(wo)men while the president and secretary of defense "patiently wait" for things to be "arranged"... so they can sign off on the repeal of DADT and it will actually, finally, be repealed.

Without the court ruling... the law passed is really just a "promise on paper" that DADT will (probably) be repealed (maybe even soon).

Another point to consider—if either the president or the secretary of defense, for whatever reason, don't "sign off"... then DADT won't be repealed in practice.

[Flubadubya]

21. Why don't you find out and let DU know?

The truth would be nice to know. I know it would be appreciated, but you're right... it could take hours - or days - or weeks - or...

I just can't figure out why the truth is always so difficult to get at when it concerns the actions and behaviors of this adminstration.

Obviously, Occam's razor doesn't apply... it must be someting more "13-level chess-like" or whatever, I suppose. :shrug:

Anyway, good look on your "truth quest" underlying the mysteries of "The Wizard of Ozbama"! :hippie:

[QC]

23. I think it might be intergalactic jujitsu this time. n/t

[LooseWilly]

24. Court proceedings and laws aren't that confusing, until they're subjected to partisan spin...

Those who argue that Obama "repealed" DADT are spinning the truth.

DADT "repeal" law isn't a straight repeal... it's a gradual repeal. It called for a study, then required that the military draft new policy... which turned out to include a new program of "training"... and once that training policy is completed then it calls for another study, and a final signing off on the results of the training and... if it is judged to have been successful enough... then the president and the secretary of defense will "sign off" on the whole process ... and only then will the military stop "separating" (investigating and kicking out) people for being gay. In the mean time, DADT really isn't repealed at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Ask,_Don't_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

However, the Act does not immediately repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Act:<3>

Provides for repeal of the current Department of Defense (DOD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, to be effective 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has received DOD's comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) certify to the congressional defense committees that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action, that DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by such repeal, and that implementation of such policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention.
{bold and italics and underlines added}

{By the way... reading this it looks like I forgot that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Mullen at the moment) also has to "sign off" to finalize the repeal.}

[EFerrari]

17. June 11, 1963

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children can't have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.

Thank you very much.

[Poll_Blind]

18. +1

PB

[Marr]

20. Hey, he's got to have something to dangle in front of liberals-- and it sure as hell

isn't going to be protecting social programs or ending wars.

[Bluebear]

25. You notice nothing good actually occurs?

It's always in progress, around the bend, being evaluated, in 2014, whatever.

[donheld]

26. .

:nuke: