The Obama administration arguing in favor of DADT is a positive step forward?

[hulklogan]

We really are in bizarro world now. :crazy:

One of many articles about Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit

What if the Justice Department makes a successful case? Where are we then?

[TheWraith]

1. And if that were actually true, it might be bizarro world.

The Justice Department is responding to a lawsuit against the current law of the United States. Exactly what they're paid for. Not liking the law doesn't change that.

[hulklogan]

2. Which doesn't negate my point at all. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

4. Huh? The Justice Department has refused to file notices of appeal in cases they lost.

It is up to the Department to decide the level of its opposition, and whether it is legally unethical for an attorney to stand up to defend a law the Department believes to be unconstitutional.

For example, a prosecutor's office should not prosecute a case in which it believes no reasonable juror would vote for conviction, regardless of what the victim might say.

[MADem]

3. With any luck, they'll argue in lackluster fashion when the time comes.

Thw Wraith is right though. They've got no choice but to argue for the law of the land. Basically, what they're doing is blowing it off for now, and letting the "casting of doubt" as it were, stand. That puts chinks in the armor of the law. They also worked with DOD to come to this decision.

Without fanfare, the Justice Department told congressional leaders last month that it would not seek Supreme Court review of a May 2008 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling cast doubt on the constitutionality of discharging gay and lesbian soldiers from the military for revealing their sexual orientation and required military officials to justify each dismissal.

President George W. Bush's administration had asked the court to reconsider the ruling but fell short of the majority vote needed for a new hearing in December. The Obama administration was given extensions of time to file a further appeal but let the deadline expire May 3.

The decision not to appeal was made "after extensive consultation with the Department of Defense," Attorney General Eric Holder said in the letter to Congress. He said the Justice Department will defend the policy when the case returns to a trial court to determine whether an Air Force officer should be discharged because of a lesbian relationship. In the meantime, the ruling is binding on federal courts in California and eight other Western states covered by the nation's largest appellate circuit.

"This decision makes it significantly easier to strike down at least the application of 'don't ask, don't tell' in many if not most cases," gay rights attorney Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, said Tuesday. Davidson filed arguments supporting the Air Force officer in the case.

[Creideiki]

5. This is the United States of America

We should change our national motto to, "Teh st00pid! It burns!"

[zipplewrath]

6. To answer the specific question

It will mean that that case is lost/won (how ever you look at it). But, it will only apply to that case. The next case that comes up will once again have to "...prove that discharging would promote troop readiness or unit cohesion". All in all, a way to discourage the military from even pursuing these case.