Something I heard on Thom Hartmann's show today Re: DADT

[damonm]

Thom was out,had a guest host filling in, and he mentioned someithing I didn NOT hitherto know about.
Apparently, it is a long-held position of the DoJ to appeal unconstitutionality rulings as long as ANY reasonable argument can be made for the statute's constitutionality (WTF that may be in this case, I have NO idea). It has in the past done so even in cases where the President's position runs counter to such an appeal. My first impulse was to scoff, but Hartmann's pretty damn smart, and most of his guest hosts the same, so...
FWIW.

[VMI Dem]

1. I've heard that the President opposes full civil rights for gays.

Maybe that has something to do with an appeal of this ruling.

[movonne]

3. And just where did you hear that....maybe from some repugs...

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Sorry it is true. Obama is a 'one man, one woman' defender

of marriage, which he calls a sacratment. He claims heterosexual couples are somehow 'Sanctified by God' although evidence to the contrary abounds, and he can offer none at all to support his contention that an invisible being tells him these things. He then clears his throat and calls himself a pragmatist, that is how crazy it all is. A faith based pragmatist, world's first.

[whistler162]

8. I heard President Obama was a illegal alien from Saturn.....

both statements have the same veracity.

[VMI Dem]

9. So you think "marriage is between a man and woman" denotes support for civil rights?

:rofl:

[whistler162]

Well I look for actions rather than the instant gratification

crowd that wants change done sloppily!

[whistler162]

13. Well I look for actions rather than the instant gratification

crowd that wants change done sloppily!

[Raine1967]

17. LINK? Source? Anything to back this up?

Cause you said you *heard it*

So can you back it up?

[katsy]

Great.

What's the reasonable argument for stabbing GBLT members in the back? I can't wait to hear it. Big bad boys will go gay and serve petit fours to terrorists instead of dismembering prisoners piece by piece? War is over? Everyone lays down their arms? Really. I can't wait to hear what that bunch of BS rationale will be.

I can't begin to fathom what this 128,000-dimensional chess move will be. Really. Jolly good game this DOJ is playing while fundamentally denying human beings their civil and human rights. But they have a plan? A strategy? One that begins with denying a group of people their civil rights?

:wtf:

[damonm]

7. Seems to be something here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39679402

Doesn't make a gigantic amount of sense to me, either, but I begin to see the tightrope that's being walked here.

[katsy]

10. Thank you.

I just don't understand the convoluted politics attached. It just seems a clear cut case of infringement of people's constitutional rights. I'm just not getting it.

[polichick]

2. Doesn't seem to apply across the board though:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=166714&mesg_id=166714

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407137.html

[Unvanguard]

12. Yes--an executive regulation, not a Congressional statute.

They could have changed it without a court ruling. It is not akin to using a single district court to permanently invalidate a law you don't want to obey.

It is true that the Department of Justice has discretion over whether or not to appeal losses. But their discretion is not arbitrary: there are legitimate reasons not to appeal (like the agency whose policy is being challenged simply accepting the change, as here), and illegitimate ones (like mere disagreement with a law.)

[Pirate Smile]

4. Did you see this segment on Rachel last night? It gives some good info.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x477339

[damonm]

5. No, I didn't...

Don't get MSNBC on my satellite package...Thx for the link.

[Lochloosa]

11. His name is Carl Wolfson. And you are right, he is smart.

He's on between 9-12 est. here: http://www.620kpoj.com/main.html

He has a degree in Political Science and is a real student of the game.

[alc]

14. they have before but they don't have to

While it's typical policy, it's decided on a case-by-case basis and not always followed.

They know their legislation may be challenged with a different party in charge so it makes sense to have a policy that any existing law is defended. Otherwise the next DoJ may not put up much of an argument when your laws are challenged and make it easy for a judge to overturn. Imagine if the current health care reform law gets to the supreme court in 2013 with a republican president. Without this policy do you think they would make any valid argument to the court (not that they will anyhow) or just say "our bad. the plaintiffs are right".

[DemocraticPilgrim]

15. Yes, sounds about right he has to uphold thce law till it changes. Share this widely.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Barney Frank on MSNBC said there is much misinformation about DADT.

He said it is a statute that Pres Obama cannot simply ignore nor wipe away with a stroke of his pen. It was written to be ironclad. I understand there is much frustration with the slow, inch by inch progress that is unfolding, but I don't think poking the president with sharp sticks is helpful.

Pres Obama reiterated that not interfering with enforcement in the interim was the price for the votes to repeal DADT. Now that DADT has been declared unconstitutional, the final ruling on that by either the 9th Circuit Court or the Supreme Court will successfully and permanently kill it and Congress can do the final honor of repeal.

Patience.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Was it the DoJ that appealed Brown vs Board of Education up to the Supreme Court?