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

Reply #19: True enough. Imagine the defense a Republican administration would put on [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
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. True enough. Imagine the defense a Republican administration would put on
Complete with side show about showers and all other dog whistling garbage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -It is complete and utter BS to say "Obama HAS to appeal DADT decision". Statistical  Oct-20-10 01:35 PM   #0 
  - This one completely defies logic.  HopeHoops   Oct-20-10 01:39 PM   #1 
  - Does this Judge's ruling go beyond the Federal District that he is a part of?  pnwmom   Oct-20-10 01:40 PM   #2 
  - Directly it applies to one district however there is nothing to prevent  Statistical   Oct-20-10 01:46 PM   #4 
     - Did you look at the actual 'defense' of this case by the DOJ?  msanthrope   Oct-20-10 02:37 PM   #14 
  - Correct and agreed. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 01:41 PM   #3 
  - I heard an argument on TRMS that seemed to make some sense to me  soleft   Oct-20-10 01:47 PM   #5 
  - It wasn't Turley  jgraz   Oct-20-10 02:04 PM   #11 
     - Turley also supported impeaching Clinton--take his legal acumen with a grain of salt. n/t  msanthrope   Oct-20-10 02:38 PM   #15 
        - I couldn't care less about that.  jgraz   Oct-20-10 08:07 PM   #71 
  - It's fierce advocacy.  Ignis   Oct-20-10 01:49 PM   #6 
  - Fierce advocacy doesn't have to be blind.  Statistical   Oct-20-10 01:51 PM   #8 
  - Let's be honest: It's political CYA.  Ignis   Oct-20-10 02:01 PM   #10 
     - +1  leftstreet   Oct-20-10 02:39 PM   #17 
     - +!  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:26 PM   #28 
  - ....  laughingliberal   Oct-20-10 03:23 PM   #26 
     - Loved that pic.  Ignis   Oct-20-10 06:19 PM   #67 
  - Recommend  xchrom   Oct-20-10 01:50 PM   #7 
  - Maybe he just wants credit for repealing DADT? (nt)  ieoeja   Oct-20-10 01:57 PM   #9 
  - I hope that isn't the case.  Statistical   Oct-20-10 02:32 PM   #12 
  - Only Congress can repeal, not him. n/t  msanthrope   Oct-20-10 02:38 PM   #16 
  - Other courts have not found DADT to be unconstitutional.  msanthrope   Oct-20-10 02:36 PM   #13 
  - True enough. Imagine the defense a Republican administration would put on  treestar   Oct-20-10 02:43 PM   #19 
  - The DOJ is only obligated to defend Constitutional laws.  Statistical   Oct-20-10 03:13 PM   #20 
  - People are letting their emotions work on them  treestar   Oct-20-10 02:42 PM   #18 
  - Some people just can't accept that Obama can do wrong.  Statistical   Oct-20-10 03:16 PM   #22 
  - "People" understand very well that Obama is unnecessarily appealing  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:17 PM   #23 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-20-10 03:14 PM   #21 
  - He was full of it then and he continued to be full of it every time you post this.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:20 PM   #25 
  - lol! I'll take a Democratic Solicitor General's word over an anonymous blogger's any day.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:29 PM   #29 
  - Faith based reasoning. And, btw, I post under my own name.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:31 PM   #31 
  - Yes, I have faith in Walter Dellinger's knowledge of constitutional law more than yours.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:33 PM   #35 
     - Exactly. You're arguing his authority and not his reasoning. Thank you. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:38 PM   #38 
        - No, I trust Dellinger's knowledge of constitutional law more than yours or anyone else's at DU.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:46 PM   #40 
  - What about the word of the Clinton attorney general who failed to appeal Dorman amendment?  Statistical   Oct-20-10 03:31 PM   #33 
  - Who said anybody had to convince you?  Touchdown   Oct-21-10 01:37 AM   #75 
  - You are aware that Obama OPPOSED prop 8 yes?  Bodhi BloodWave   Oct-21-10 12:46 AM   #74 
     - You are aware that doesn't mean shit, yes?  Touchdown   Oct-21-10 01:39 AM   #76 
  - BS. In 1996 the Clinton administration CHOSE not to appeal a law barring HIV+ soldiers.  Statistical   Oct-20-10 03:25 PM   #27 
  - Seems to be ignoring, along with others, that the injunction doesn't prevent repeal of the law...  laughingliberal   Oct-20-10 03:29 PM   #30 
     - So what? You're ignoring, once again, Dellinger's point.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:31 PM   #32 
     - Dellinger is as entitled to his opinion as I am to ignore it. nt  laughingliberal   Oct-20-10 03:32 PM   #34 
     - That "delicate dance" business is repulsive.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:35 PM   #36 
        - I think they wore out '11th dimensional chess.' And, being a 'gay' issue makes 'dance' appropo. nt  laughingliberal   Oct-20-10 03:36 PM   #37 
        - Tell it to the Republicans in Congress.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:45 PM   #39 
           - The Republicans in Congress aren't the moving party. Take some responsibility. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:46 PM   #41 
              - What does that mean? Then why did the DADT repeal vote in the Senate fail?  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 03:50 PM   #43 
                 - The Republicans in Congress are not filing this appeal. Obama is.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 03:57 PM   #45 
                    - The WH has probably decided this is going to the Supreme Court if Congress won't repeal it.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:00 PM   #46 
                       - Exactly. Reckless. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:02 PM   #47 
                          - lol! No, it's absolutely the best thing to do. Either Congress or the SCOTUS has the final word.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:06 PM   #48 
                             - But Obama said he wanted to end DADT, not get the final word.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:20 PM   #49 
                             - I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:33 PM   #54 
                                - It's not a semantic game. Getting the final word is not the same  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:36 PM   #56 
                                   - lol!  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:40 PM   #59 
                                      - That's what I thought.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:41 PM   #62 
                             - But according to Obama, he is interested not in the final word  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:23 PM   #50 
                                - Obama is also interested in cap and trade. That does not mean he is going to enact it by fiat.  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 04:36 PM   #55 
                                   - Oh, baloney. After this point. Barack Obama can no longer claim  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:38 PM   #57 
                                      - After this point, Barack Obama can no longer claim he is for cap in trade. Because the course of  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 04:39 PM   #58 
                                         - Congress has nothing to do with this appeal. Fail. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:41 PM   #61 
                                            - In general, you are saying all that matters is the outcome. Not the legality of how the outcome is  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 04:42 PM   #63 
                                               - +1000  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:57 PM   #65 
                                               - Wrong. BARACK OBAMA said he wanted a good outcome.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 05:24 PM   #66 
                                                  - "Wanting a good outcome" implies "wanting a legal outcome." This is not difficult to understand. n/t  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 07:03 PM   #68 
  - K & R nt  laughingliberal   Oct-20-10 03:18 PM   #24 
  - It's appalling  Recursion   Oct-20-10 03:48 PM   #42 
  - When you're right you're right. K/R. nt  Romulox   Oct-20-10 03:51 PM   #44 
  - The problem is that there is circuit court precedent upholding DADT that is directly on point.  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 04:28 PM   #51 
  - True if you don't want an appellate level opinion  grantcart   Oct-20-10 04:32 PM   #52 
  - But I thought the outcome is what mattered to Obama.  EFerrari   Oct-20-10 04:40 PM   #60 
     - I don't time to do an exhaustive search but when the issue first broke  grantcart   Oct-20-10 04:51 PM   #64 
     - One person. He found one person.  Prism   Oct-20-10 07:05 PM   #69 
        - I never thought I would see the day where doing something the legal way is merely "agreeing with  BzaDem   Oct-20-10 07:24 PM   #70 
  - Your citation does not mean what you think it means.  ClarkUSA   Oct-20-10 04:32 PM   #53 
  - There seems precedent for the DOJ not appealing and  suffragette   Oct-20-10 11:44 PM   #72 
  - Thank you for this information, suffragette  sabrina 1   Oct-22-10 12:57 AM   #77 
     - Thanks. I found the part about them letting the court handle conflicting decisions  suffragette   Oct-22-10 01:31 AM   #78 
        - That is an excellent point. Someone in my thread made  sabrina 1   Oct-22-10 01:34 AM   #79 
           - Clearly different standards  suffragette   Oct-22-10 02:44 AM   #80 
  - Like those you criticize, you oversimplify a bit.  Unvanguard   Oct-21-10 12:02 AM   #73 
  - I was told that the DADT issue is about separation of powers.  LiberalAndProud   Oct-22-10 04:51 AM   #81 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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