K&R to call on Eric Holder NOT to appeal the ruling that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional

[Ken Burch]

Attorney General Holder, do the decent thing, and let the horrific injustice known as "DADT" die with this ruling.

There's no justification whatsover for any federal appeal of this decision. If it goes to the Supreme Court, hate will win. You don't have to let that happen.

Let military homophobia end TODAY.

[democrank]

1. K & R

[madmax]

2. K & R

[jefferson_dem]

3. Kick-er-ooni!

It's past time to end this bit of injustice.

Even though the Obama Adminstration did not lead (sadly), the least they can do is get out of the way at this point.

[TheKentuckian]

4. K&R So let it be written, so let it be done.

[ShadowLiberal]

5. K & R, no need for congress to repeal it now if Holder does what's right

[MikeW]

6. federal judge cant order the military to do anything

Only the POTUS and the SecDef can.

[mucifer]

7. I don't think Eric Holder is reading DU. Might be better to send him a letter.

[TheWraith]

8. Whether or not the DOJ defends federal law is not a discretionary judgement. nt

[Ken Burch]

9. They always have the option not to appeal

And nothing could be worth sending it to the Supreme Court, where we know the anti-gay side would win.

[TheWraith]

20. Where did you get that idea?

The SCOTUS swing vote is Kennedy, who's been very good on gay rights.

[Ken Burch]

21. You'd put this all at risk by having it drag through the courts...in the name of...what, exactly?

Why even GIVE the pro-hatred side any more chances to save "DADT"?

And you can't assume that Kennedy would vote for what's right on this when the crazed god-squadders had time to raise a massive counter-attack in public opinion.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Senator Gillibrand disagrees.

Fed'l judge in CA has ruled #DADT unconstitutional. Great news! It's my hope that DOJ does not appeal. DADT is immoral & hurts our military.

http://twitter.com/SenGillibrand/statuses/24069787100

[TheWraith]

18. I love Senator Gillibrand, but being a lawyer, she really should know better.

The Department of Justice is constitutionally required to defend federal laws. While it's theoretically possible that they could fail to appeal, in doing so they would be engaging in a violation of federal law which would leave them open to counter-suit.

[BzaDem]

23. They actually are allowed not to appeal, though they have to notify Congress if they don't.

Here's an example:

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/justice-department-refuses-defend-congress-legal-battle-over-law-censoring-marijuana

"WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision." Today is Congress' last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit."

---

However, I don't believe the power is completely discretionary. I think there has to be a good reason (such as no viable argument, etc).

[CTLawGuy]

24. the government is the DOJs client

not the president personally or the attorney general, personally. a lawyer has an ethical duty to act in his/her client's best interest, even if the lawyer does not personally agree with it. That means, unless there is absolutely no good faith argument the DOJ could make, the DOJ must presume that the government believes its laws are constitutional and would want them retained in force. (A lawyer also has an ethical duty not to advance an argument that has no possible merit, and that would mean NOT defending a law for which you could not make a good faith argument for constitutionality. However, it is a very rare position that would meet this standard.)

[ruggerson]

14. if a law has been found unconstitutional, they have full discretion

n/t

[TheWraith]

19. Only if there is precedent.

For instance, if Congress (somehow) passed a law requiring segregated schools, the DOJ would not be required to defend it, since it would run contrary to the established constitutional precedent of Brown vs. Board of Education. In this case, they're laying down precedent as they go--which is why we WANT these cases to be appealed. The higher the court this goes to, the more robust the precedent for striking down other discriminatory laws. This, the DOMA case in Massachusetts, and the Prop 8 case in CA would all be nearly wasted if their precedent weren't taken to a higher court.

Appealing is good.

[Ken Burch]

22. I don't see how this could be used to affect DOMA at all.

Requirements for military service are in an entirely different legal category than marriage law.

[one_voice]

10. K & R

[jenmito]

11. K&R! Now Obama will have another question to answer tomorrow besides the Koran burning. n/t

[Ken Burch]

12. And Pastor Jones or the Westboro Baptist cult will burn an Army Field Manual...

n/t.

[stevenleser]

15. K&R

[bluestateguy]

16. This is a gift to the Administration if they will just take advantage of it

It gives them a surefire way of ending the DADT policy (by not appealing) even if the Congress fucks up and fails to formally repeal it this fall.

[Ken Burch]

17. That's my point. Just leave it alone. Don't TRY to triangulate it or find "common ground"

there IS no common ground between bigotry and opposition to bigotry.

K.I.S.S.