DoJ Accused Of Hypocrisy For Appealing DADT While Letting Park Proselytizing Ruling Stand

[DeSwiss]

Source: Huffington Post

DoJ Accused Of Hypocrisy For Appealing DADT While Letting Park Proselytizing Ruling Stand

Sam Stein | Huffington Post | Updated: 10-21-10 02:28 PM

Less than a week before the Obama administration's Department of Justice appealed a judge's ruling that the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is unconstitutional, it elected to let stand a court ruling allowing religious groups to proselytize in federal parks.

In a little-noticed decision last Thursday, the DoJ let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that small groups wishing to gather and demonstrate at national parks no longer have to obtain a permit from the National Park Service. The Department's decision to let that ruling stand while challenging, days later, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' decision to overturn DADT on constitutional grounds are not topically related. But it did spur another round of criticism that the administration is either insensitive or hypocritical when it comes to gay rights.

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/doj-accused-of-hypocrisy-_n_771722.html

---

- This administration's so-called rationale for why they acted to appeal DADT as we can now clearly see -- just won't wash.

[MineralMan]

1. This is hardly breaking news. There are several threads from the past

couple of days in GD on this very subject. The HuffPo article is more of an editorial than news, anyhow.

[DeSwiss]

3. I'm sure you'd like for it to be buried. n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Not at all. It has simply been moved to GD. It was not

Late Breaking News in any way. That's my point.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted, but it's a GD subject.

[smiley]

5. news to me

...sorry I'm not up to date on all the thread in DU:shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

8. But this is a new take and it is brand new

Of course, the administration's religious hypocrisy is not news at all, but rather a predictable and constant droning. So I agree with you there, the hypocrisy is not news. The hypocrisy is an old, old story, starring Donnie McClurkin as the Pope and Rick Warren as the Beaver.

[DeSwiss]

14. "....starring Donnie McClurkin as the Pope and Rick Warren as the Beaver."

:rofl:

[QC]

17. I know who can play Eddie Haskell! n/t

[MineralMan]

19. And here it is in GD. Anyone who wants can join the thread.

It was not Late Breaking News. It has been moved to the appropriate forum.

[northzax]

2. one was an appeals court

a panel of judges. one step below the Supremes. one was a single federal judge two levels lower. and there's no difference there for you? one judge, nine judges?


this isn't a slap in the face of the GLBT community, it's a slap in the face to those who can't be bothered to learn anything about the Federal court system.

find me a single case in which the Obama administration failed to appeal an appeals court ruling by a single judge.

[DeSwiss]

4. Puleeze! n/t

[northzax]

9. you don't see a difference?

really?

President Obama is a lawyer. a law professor. you expect him to not think and act like one? if you didn't want a lawyer...

[DeSwiss]

11. Not when the result.....

...is a continuation of the DISCRIMINATION Obama claims he wants to end. The judge ended it. So, in answer to your query - NO.

- In addition to it being terribly inept, this decision was primarily a political one.

[treestar]

28. That judge did not "end it" for once and for all and for the whole

country. That was a pure fantasy.

[polichick]

16. Wait a minute - it's either "legislating from the bench" or it isn't. nt

[Exilednight]

20. Then, according to Obama's reasoning, this should of been appealed to the ...............

Supreme Court. If the job of the DoJ is to defend all laws until exhaustion is reached, then this still had one more step to go. Granted, the SC could turn down hearing the appeal, but by his own reasoning he should of at least tried.

[treestar]

29. No, from a District Court it is appealed to the Circuit Court

And then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only takes cases from the Circuits (or the Supreme Courts of states).

[Exilednight]

33. Either way, by his own reasoning, he should of appealed it. n/t

[Supersedeas]

6. didn't this Attorney General look right into the coward and call us 'a nation of cowards??'

[DeSwiss]

7. I believe he did.

In fact, I'm http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6905255&page=1">sure of it

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Takes one. Takes one to. Takes one to know one...

Eric.

[T Wolf]

10. It looks VERY MUCH like the administration's words are different from its actions.

Unless the true meaning of the words is derived from that three-dimensional chess dictionary.

[DeSwiss]

12. Yeah it looks that way, doesn't it??? n/t

[vaberella]

35. Looks what way? Post 21 says otherwise. n/t

[vaberella]

31. Or maybe you need to be schooled by post 21. n/t

[boppers]

15. "not topically related"

...but don't worry, we'll invent a false relation!

[CTLawGuy]

21. did you read this part?

"As a DoJ official points out: 'one key difference is that the park service is a regulation (not a statute) as opposed to DADT,' which was an act of Congress. 'A regulation is an executive branch creation, as such, the president is able to modify or rescind .'

'DADT falls within the obligation to defend/follow laws passed by Congress that are reasonable deemed constitutional.'"

----------------------------------------------------------

The duty/tradition to defend federal laws (statutes) is not necessarily a duty to appeal every single case, but it is a duty not to decline to appeal an "unfavorable" ruling simply because the president dislikes the law that was challenged. It is a duty of the DOJ to act in the best interests of the client, which is the government and not the president himself.

Now in the case of a regulation that is a simple executive branch matter, that the president can repeal at will, it becomes pointless to appeal if the president says "no, I change my mind about this regulation, I am going to abandon it."

if you want to attack Obama, you are going to have to try again.

[SidDithers]

22. +1...

Facts are good.

Sid

[Spazito]

23. Thanks for emphasizing a key part that was left out of the OP ...

it is much appreciated.

[msanthrope]

25. Quite a few key parts get left out of OPs, don't they? n/t

[msanthrope]

24. Why bring facts into an anti-Obama rant???? Good point, though...n/t

[treestar]

27. Thank you. There is more to learn.

Some here are trumpeting their ignorance almost like teabaggers do. And looking for a chance to be offended.

[vaberella]

30. Finally a bit of reason. This deserves it's own thread.

B/c this site is full of too many wannabe and misinformed constitutional lawyers.

[DevonRex]

32. Thank you. That's about as plain as it can be made. nt

[vaberella]

26. I'm a bit shocked people are running on something that has been clearly stated as comparing...

apples and oranges. ~sigh~

[mkultra]

34. Ignorant point of view