You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: I don't think its a pony any more. Its beans now. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
40. I don't think its a pony any more. Its beans now.
You are asking for too many beans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Department of Justice to appeal DADT ruling terrya  Sep-23-10 06:37 PM   #0 
  - once you find out, let the rest of us know  davidinalameda   Sep-23-10 06:40 PM   #1 
  - DADT repeal is NOW entirely in the Pentagon's hands  terrya   Sep-23-10 06:43 PM   #4 
  - They aren't defending it....they are objecting to a stretch of associational standing.....  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:03 PM   #12 
     - they are asking the court not to order the military to stop enforcing DADT  ruggerson   Sep-23-10 08:11 PM   #28 
     - That's not what they are asking for.  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:18 AM   #34 
     - But why bother with this?  BlueCheese   Sep-23-10 09:07 PM   #31 
        - Because it will affect other litigation--non-DADT stuff too.  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:20 AM   #35 
  - K&R  Solly Mack   Sep-23-10 06:40 PM   #2 
  - Some doubtlessly will tell you that they "have a duty" to "defend"  depakid   Sep-23-10 06:43 PM   #3 
  - If you read the brief, you'd realize this isn't an appeal of the ruling,  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:15 PM   #18 
  - I'm just preemptively countering an assertion that gets made on nearly all of these sorts of threads  depakid   Sep-23-10 07:18 PM   #19 
     - "Not speaking to the substance or the merits of the filing."  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:23 PM   #21 
        - :sigh: The problem is that people have a false notion in their heads  depakid   Sep-23-10 07:34 PM   #24 
           - Look in the mirror. n/t  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:20 AM   #36 
  - or what Ahnold and Jerry Brown did in California  davidinalameda   Sep-23-10 10:41 PM   #32 
  - WTF?  G_j   Sep-23-10 06:47 PM   #5 
  - Fuck 'em  Newsjock   Sep-23-10 06:49 PM   #6 
  - Yeah, it's Obama's fault  elias7   Sep-23-10 06:54 PM   #7 
     - Already?  Newsjock   Sep-23-10 06:55 PM   #9 
        - But it isn't an appeal of the ruling--do you even understand that?  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:06 PM   #13 
           - IT DOESN'T MATTER.  Tesha   Sep-23-10 07:44 PM   #27 
           - Yes...it does matter.  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:22 AM   #37 
           - Why would they want to do that if their objective was to end DADT?  ruggerson   Sep-23-10 08:24 PM   #30 
              - Because stretcthing associational litigation wouldn't be good law.  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:24 AM   #38 
  - I hope the court tells them to get fucked  Uzybone   Sep-23-10 06:54 PM   #8 
  - Read the brief--it's self-explanatory--it isn't an appeal of the ruling.  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:07 PM   #15 
  - Your OP title is Incorrect. This isn't an appeal of the ruling, it's an objection to injunctive  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:00 PM   #10 
  - Your OP title is Incorrect. This isn't an appeal of the ruling, it's an objection to injunctive  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:00 PM   #11 
  - Fine, I stand corrected.  terrya   Sep-23-10 07:14 PM   #17 
     - Well, you do raise an interesting point.....one that I agree with.  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:22 PM   #20 
        - Seriously, this is it.  terrya   Sep-23-10 07:28 PM   #22 
  - You obviously don't appreciate fine chess. n/t  QC   Sep-23-10 07:07 PM   #14 
  - It isn't fine chess---it's an objection to proposed injunctive relief.  msanthrope   Sep-23-10 07:08 PM   #16 
  - Why would they file this if they dont plan to appeal the ruling? n/t  FreeState   Sep-23-10 07:33 PM   #23 
     - Because stretching associational standing would affect other cases and other litigants, and doesn't  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:32 AM   #41 
        - I think that many of us non-lawyers don't understand what  rusty fender   Sep-24-10 10:42 AM   #43 
           - Associational standing refers to who is a party in litigation---  msanthrope   Sep-25-10 06:09 AM   #44 
              - Thanks, now I understand--  rusty fender   Sep-25-10 11:11 AM   #45 
  - I guess it's time for me to shift into "Yes, We Can" mode.  terrya   Sep-23-10 07:37 PM   #25 
     - the sun will come out tomorrow  davidinalameda   Sep-23-10 10:43 PM   #33 
  - In order to get the Supreme Court to decide on it?  TheBigotBasher   Sep-23-10 07:37 PM   #26 
  - No - it can still be appealed up the food chain, even if the judge grants broad injuctive relief  ruggerson   Sep-23-10 08:22 PM   #29 
  - I was hoping that those who always come to defend this sort of thing would be here schooling us.  Stinky The Clown   Sep-24-10 08:25 AM   #39 
  - It isn't brilliant strategy---it's hornbook law.  msanthrope   Sep-24-10 08:34 AM   #42 
  - I don't think its a pony any more. Its beans now.  VMI Dem   Sep-24-10 08:28 AM   #40 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC