Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Spot the disconnect: A month ago the Senate held a "vote" on DADT which failed

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 » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 01:03 PM
Original message
Spot the disconnect: A month ago the Senate held a "vote" on DADT which failed
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 01:14 PM by kenny blankenship
we are told that the President supported the effort to bring DADT to a vote in the Senate and supported its repeal. Had the vote succeeded -everyone knew in advance that it absolutely would not- DADT would be dead. And certain people round here tell us that this would be instantaneous death and forever.

A week ago, a Federal Judge ruled that DADT is unConstitutional but the Obama Administration opposed this and wanted a stay put on the effect of this judicial review. It received a stay from an appellate court. We are told by the same Noisy People that "this was absolutely necessary!" because to strike down DADT would create chaos and panic in the military service branches, who have had no notice to get ready for integration of the armed forces.

Have you worked out what we're looking for? Correct - the answer is HYPOCRISY.

(I guess it would be more correct to say "the answer is logical inconsistency". But the embrace of logical inconsistencies, when they are motivated by partisan leanings, is by convention a species of hypocrisy)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. The reason that the DOJ appealed is because they're required to.
It's the function of the DOJ is among other things to defend federal law, right or wrong. The arguments formed by their lawyers have nothing to do, really, with the actual motivation of their appeals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Your statement is false. Please correct it.
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 01:48 PM by kenny blankenship
They are not required to appeal anything.

They defended the law -as required- but they lost.

It is perfectly legal for the Dept. of Justice at that point to say: We have made a defense of the law; it was found not to be Constitutional.

Nothing more needs to be said or done to satisfy the law.

Examples of the Obama Dept of Justice declining to appeal adverse decisions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/014209.html
http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/071509a.asp

An article from a Veterans affairs website illustrating the fallacy of the "DOJ is REQUIRED to appeal argument".
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4463

Please correct your false statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You're wasting your time...simply pity that fool who knows nothing
and continues to show that he knows nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. +1000
Q3JR4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. keep on spreading those lies
maybe someone will actually believe them if you keep telling them long enough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Why do you hang out in GLBT?
It seems like your only purpose is to tell us why we deserve nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I am sure that this is Exactly the purpose.
:(

We do seem to attract people who want to convince us that we really don't deserve our rights, and it's nobody's fault, just the way the law works.

Or we don't really deserve our rights, because it's just common sense.

Or we don't really deserve our rights, because we would be offending our straight "allies" by demanding too many of our rights to quickly.

With allies like these... x(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. I believe you have figured it out! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Pretty much.
He's like Cerberus keeping the Dead in their place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-10 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Thanks for more of your misinformation, Wraith
WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is from my post in GD
Quote Of The Day - Ted Olson

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law. I don't know what is going through the administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell.' It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'" - Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgirl Donating Member (950 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. An appeal of the actual ruling has NOT been lodged.
A STAY was requested on the action was filed. The DOJ has 60 days from the date of the ruling to file the appeal.
I suspect the DOJ will use the entire 60 days before making any decisions on an appeal - allowing Congress to reconvene and a second vote taken on the Defense bill that includes the amendment repealing DADT.

If that vote fails, an appeal may not be lodged - thus allowing the judge's ruling to stand. If the vote succeeds, then appeal would be moot.

(At least this is my positive guess at what may be happening at the DOJ!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. There's a small problem
If the ruling goes through, it will be a Republican-appointed judge who ruled on a lawsuit brought by the LCRs (the second most ineffective gay advocacy group in the history of Earth). That means that the Republicans will be crowing about how the gay community owes the Republicans our loyalty--after all we're all single-issue voters, right? So the ruling has to be appealed to at least get a Democrat-appointed judge involved so that the Democrats save face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-10 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. Spot the disconnect: in September, every single Senate Rs voted to block DADT repeal
So now, ten days out from the midterms, DUers are loudly bashing Ds -- because, y'know, when Rs block a measure, then the only logical and moral thing we can do is pound Ds on the head with a big stick in the hope that Rs will take over the Senate so we can complain the Ds aren't succeeding and pound them on the head with a big stick some more

It's pure genius! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-10 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. You didn't read the OP, did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I guess you missed the part where Joe Biden told Rachel Maddow
that a "deal" had been worked with some Republicans, who would agree to support the DADT repeal when it hit the Senate floor?

What happened there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Here's the transcript. You can read what Biden actually said:

Biden/Maddow Transcript
September 15, 2010
~snip~
BIDEN: ... we should repeal it. I think everyone who was fired should be able to be reinstated if they wanted to ... I mean, here we have fired hundreds of translators, when were out there trying to figure out how under Gods name to find enough people to speak everything from Farsi to Urdu to-- I mean, this is absolutely mindless what were doing ...

MADDOW: ... So ... best-case scenario for repeal, would be sometime in the spring ... Why keep kicking people out now while all of this movement is happening towards ending the policy?

BIDEN: Because that is the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it ... I think well get 55 vote, to flat repeal it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39215139
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. We've never looked to Rs for our salvation.
Why would we be surprised when they act true to form? Why would Dems act surprised either? Everyone knows those big votes are Kabuki theatre spectacles where the outcome is as certain as a WWE match. First, they decide whether they want it to pass. If not, then they don't bother with the Rs, but they meet with those "vulnerable" Dems in RW districts who need to save face. They let them vote no, but keep the vote close, so it looks like they really "Fought Hard." It's all bullshit. Anyone who has ever followed these votes knows that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT 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