I like how the article starts off telling you that the DOJ has to always defend the law in court and then writes why that isn't true.
First he tells you the President has to have the DOJ defend DADT in court. Then he says the DOJ can make arguments against the law, as it defends it. Yeah, that part made me giggle too. Then he goes on to write about how there is president for a President challenging law in court (in rare instances, he adds, never mind the many times the Supreme Court has commented that the President has this right, and to just what extent). All the while he's telling you the law won't disappear. Which is a great idea until you realize that's not true, especially when he explains that, upon not repealing, the court "would very likely allow lawyers for Congress or outside groups to appear and argue on its behalf. " Meaning, if a Federal court declared something unconstitutional and NO ONE OBJECTED, then the law is unconstitutional and thus not enforced. But if someone objected, that just means the court has to hear the arguments for keeping the law or not keeping it. And that brings us to the only real argument that can be made in this case, that the Supreme Court would agree with the President is a "tough argument to make." Now, I can see that as a reasonable point. But instead of discussing that, the President keeps feeding us a line we know to be misleading.
But, why not ask 1994 Dellinger what he thinks?
"If,...the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute. " (
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm)
Notice he wrote "probable" there? It's right after he talks about the President using his "judgment." There's no qualification of either, other than, if the President thinks the law is unconstitutional and he believes that there is a chance the court would agree with him, then he has the right to challenge a law.
In another post it was pointed out that the defenders of the passed HCR that, because it didn't include a public option and whatnot, you shouldn't let perfection be the enemy of the possible; but somehow in this instance that's not an applicable idea. We're told over and over again what the President can't do, when those arguments are found to be untrue. And when we don't buy into it, we're given a fear tactic. "A Republican President might appeal the Judge's ruling and reinstate DADT! And there will be no Congress to stop him!" Yeah, that's called a fear tactic. It's used because there is no rational argument to defend the DOJ's stance of, not only of not appealing the ruling, but challenge the law itself. As supporters of President Obama, we have to synch up his statements about being a "fierce advocate" and his actions. And, right now, that's very hard to do. Because his actions scream the opposite of "fierce advocate." And this causes many to begin to degrade the very people the President claimed to be advocating. We're told his hands are tied, or that we should fear what a Republican can do, or that we don't matter and our needs are putting in danger other important stuff, like HCR or the economy or the war. But that's just divisive. And at a time when many are complaining about who isn't voting for the Democratic Party, when we're being assaulted by disagreeable political groups like the Tea Party, when every Democratic nominee and incumbent needs support--these divisive actions aren't needed. They only hurt us. It's time to stop making excuses, to stop pretending, and unite in solidarity and stand for what the Democratic Party is, at its core, all about: equality. And to do what President Obama asked us to do two years ago--make him do his job.