The real problem with the legal argument of the Obama administration about DADT

[dsc]

http://www.365gay.com/blog/lowenstein-obama-administration-argued-dadt-rational-policy/

“The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

“The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

“In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.””

end of quote

There are three levels of scrutiny in regards to discrimination. There is strict scrutiny, which means that the law in question must have a compelling government purpose and must be the least restrictive way to accomplish that purpose. There is intermediate scrutiny, and there is rational basis. Rational basis basicly means that there is some purpose to the law and the law accomplishes that purpose. Using that test for anti gay discrimination would be disasterous. The Supreme Court would uphold virtually any law under that test. If he really believes the rational basis test, I have to wonder just what his appointments to SCOTUS would be like.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that discrimination against gays must pass "strict scrutiny"? NT

NT

[dsc]

2. No

Lawerence was decided on privacy while Issue 2 was decided on due process.