Obama Admin Asks Court to Stay Decision on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[villager]

Source: CNN

BREAKING on "don't ask, don't tell"

(CNN) - The federal government requested an immediate stay, pending appeal, of a federal court injunction of the military’s policy barring openly gays from serving.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/14/breaking-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

---

A little more betrayal with that order, sir or ma'am?

[Luciferous]

1. I can't say that I'm surprised... this administration is appalling.

[Newsjock]

2. They're afraid to let even one gay homosexual serve openly

Because then everyone would realize that the world keeps turning, toads do not rain down from the heavens, and businessmen do not eat their own briefcases. It's all about the fear, just like when teh gheys are allowed to marry ... public opinion moves quickly when it actually happens and the much-feared calamaties do not occur.

Shame on this administration. Shame.

[davidinalameda]

42. as opposed to straight homosexuals?

:shrug:

[mulsh]

3. Legal Scholars- Do all appeals need to be exhausted in order

for a law, rule, or policy to be truly dead and unconstitutional? What is the DoJ's responsibilities to perform due diligence in cases like this? Finally if the DoJ exhausts all appeals and loses in every case doesn't that hammer multiple nails in DODT's coffin?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. According to people like Jonathan Turley --

The judge ruled it unconstitutional and the Justice Department could agree with that ruling -- they do not have to appeal it and the ruling stands.

[Blasphemer]

43. So basically, they are afraid

and playing it safe is very poor strategy on this one. The country supports ending the policy. Concerns over "judicial activism" are unwarranted. The legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch share power. So we have a situation where (ostensibly) the judicial branch and executive branch are in agreement. The DoD is part of the executive branch so what's the problem? Speculation is that they don't want something of such importance decided by a lower court. However, if this goes to the SCOTUS, judicial activism will still decide the issue and it will be yet another sign that the GOP, even when supposedly out of power, controls this country.

[No Elephants]

32. Not a legal scholar but a law is either constitutional or unconstitutional the day it is enacted.

If you don't want to obey it, or have been arrested under it, you may ask a court to declare it unconstitutional. If it does--and no one appeals, you're golden.

If appeals continue and we're talking constitution of the U.S., the SCOTUS has the final word--unless and until the SCOTUS later overrules itself (in another case.

Any lawyer going to court researches (or malpractices). Is that what you mean by "due diligence?"

"Finally if the DoJ exhausts all appeals and loses in every case doesn't that hammer multiple nails in DODT's toffin?"

If you exhaust all appeals, the final deicision is all that matters legally, but you could call it " multiple nails" if it makes you feel better. It would not be an off the wall description by any means. Doubt that will happen in this case, though, given the Roberts SCOTUS.

eta: I agree w/Reply #9.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. And there were those here --

who poo poo'd the reports yesterday they were going to take just such action today.

Exactly what I expected them to do. :( :mad:

[chimpymustgo]

17. I think it has something to do with a big parcheesi game?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. OK I laughed!

:D

[Beavker]

5. This may Cost Obama more Liberal votes.

Not sure who we'd vote for, but some may vote for the Pig in rebellion, or stay home. Neither helps Obama.
I can't believe his lack of backbone on this one. I know he could be somewhat homophobic, as a 'Christian', or Muslim, depending on who you talk to (j/k), but he needs to make the Liberal choices on at least the non-economic factors. I get the give and take with financial matters. But these area human rights type issues.

[villager]

8. His lack of backbone in *this* one? When has he ever shown backbone...

...since being sworn in?

[laconicsax]

38. When he stands up to his base. n/t

[No Elephants]

34. Liberals might vote Green or Democratic Socialist, but never Republicon.

[cyr330]

44. I can CERTAINLY believe his LACK of a backbone. . .

He's disgusting and only wants to please the Rethugs. Little does he know that they DO NOT want to please him.

[chidy]

66. i'll tell you right now

the queer community is mostly rejecting him and this administration. not giving money, not shutting up about how angry we are, not participating in GOTV. this administration has earned more than just our "disappointment" it's actively working to earn our scorn and ire. and yes, the whole democratic party will feel the effect. gays and lesbians are disproportionate donors and activists, and without us? well, good luck with that. read some gay political blogs, you'll see what i mean. we're over him.

[saigon68]

69. Most progreessives around here have had it with him and Rahm and the DLC

This Nov will be a Blood Bath

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Disappointed, disillusioned, dismayed, digusted, hardly begin to describe my reaction...

x(

[GodlessBiker]

7. I wonder if there are any other court decisions enforcing individual civil rights which Obama ...

thinks were wrong-headed and that he would have preferred the country to have waited for Congress to act.

[williesgirl]

10. Great way to "energize" your base - NOT! This sucks.

[jaybeat]

11. Of course...

Because we have to give minority Republicans every chance possible to pretend they are the majority AND that they get to choose what rights another minority group does and doesn't deserve.

If the Bill of Rights were subject to a popular vote, it would never pass. Which is why it isn't. And why we have one in the first place.

[Yeahyeah]

12. There might be someone still in the White House that thinks liberals are "fucking retarded".

[Smashcut]

13. Spineless phonies that they are.

[chimpymustgo]

19. Spineless phonies that they are. Sickening.

[treestar]

14. They always will ask for a stay pending appeal

This is going to be cause for equal outrage to the appeal? Really?

"Another betrayal?" Please. Betrayal would be a veto of a repeal bill.

We spent most of yesterday on DU explaining this stuff with no listening at all.

[villager]

15. Why are they appealing? If they don't have to?

Please.

[Smashcut]

Why are they appealing at all?

And please don't continue to propagate the lie that they are obligated to. Not when a court has found the law unconstitutional.

And not in light of this memo from the Palm Center:

http://rennacommunications.com/file_download/42

[Smashcut]

16. dupe

[GodlessBiker]

18. That's when the side asking for the stay thinks the other side should have lost at trial.

Does Obama think plaintiffs should have lost at trial?

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Who is 'we'? Are you in multiple bodies? Do you speak for a

group? Or is this the 'Royal we' being self conferred? Which is it? Are you claiming to be the spokesman for an organized group of DUers? Or are you just self inflating?

[JustinL]

57. the loathsome arguments made in the request make this cause for greater, not equal, outrage

However, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality...

There are no "reasonable arguments" to be made in support of the constitutionality of DADT. The fact that the DOJ thinks otherwise is disgusting.

The immediate implementation of the injunction would disrupt (the Pentagon's ongoing policy) review...

IOW, the DOJ considers the Pentagon's "policy review" to be more important than the rights of gay troops.

The precipitous changes to military policy required by the Court's injunction would result in a host of significant and immediate harms to the recognized public interest in ensuring that the Nation has strong and effective military operations...

This is truly despicable fearmongering. I'd expect a statement like this from the Family Research Council, not from the Department of "Justice".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/reports_doj_will_ask_for_stay_of_dadt_injunction_p.php?ref=fpa

[No Elephants]

60. No reasonable arguments to support making gay folk choose between fulfilling a call to military

service for their country and lying?


"You may die for your country, but you must first give up your integrity."

You think there are no reasonable arguments to support that policy? (Begging the question, who the hell would WANT to support that policy?)

No?

Well, cut off my legs and call me "Shorty!"


I bet you don't even think making gay troops lie and hide and live in fear makes us safer.


(Psst: Terra! Terra! Terra!)

[JustinL]

62. sorry, my mind isn't limber enough to perform the gymnastics necessary to defend the DOJ on this n/t

[No Elephants]

64. Nothing requires them to ask for a stay, or, for that matter, to appeal.

[OrwellwasRight]

74. You're kididng, right?

"We spent most of yesterday on DU explaining this stuff with no listening at all."

You spent most of the day being an apologist for the Obama Adminsitration's direct violation of a campaign promise and overt action to sell out gay Americans and nobody listened? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

Count me a proud member of the "Fucking Retarded Underground."

[tomm2thumbs]

20. Obama said on the MTV town hall the policy WILL CHANGE on his watch -

I didn't like the issue with this case being appealed or stayed, etc, but he did not mince words about it.

We'll see

[Exilednight]

51. Well, he kept his promise, a judge changed it. Now Obama wants to change it back again. n/t

[No Elephants]

61. And all those who have been discharged since January 2009 and will

continue to be discharged while everyone in D.C., from the Pentagon to Capitol Hill to the WH contemplates his or her navel? And those who must live in fear of discharge?

People made miserable, lives ruined. Jim Crow laws still staining our nation's image of gay people.

For what? Because members of the Armed Forces of the United States "can't handle the truth?" Or because gay troops have been sacrificed for the political fears of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

Hell, he even took his time referring this to Gates.

[demigoddess]

21. insert four letter word here and repeat loudly!!!

eom

[Jumping John]

22. Obama should make a rule that they have to ride in the back of the humvee and mark special

drinking fountains for HOMOS ONLY and make separate chow halls for them and make them use separate entrances - preferably in the rear of buildings.

Yea that's the ticket - fer sure/ All fixed and good.

[queerart]

28. You Stated It Perfectly Mister John...... (nt)

[TheEuclideanOne]

23. Can somebody answer this question?

Is there some point that I missed that Obama did not choose the worst possible path? This decision, though, would have to be entered into textbooks as one of the most profoundly stupid political decisions in history. Boy, the opportunity costs of this administration are almost unmeasurable.

[fascisthunter]

24. Why? For What Purpose is He Doing This?

[mvd]

37. I'm trying to believe the positive here. But it is hard

If they don't appeal it, I guess the issue still isn't resolved at a higher level? But if this goes to the Supreme Court, we know the outcome. So since they are allowed to not appeal, why not let the ruling stand - and as one poster said, use it to further along legislation? BTW, the Repukes need to be MADE to filibuster that bill. Show how they don't support equal rights.

[fascisthunter]

73. agreed

[Imagevision]

25. We can be grateful that Obama isn't pulling this turnaround 2 years from now, brace yourself!

This is vaguely just the beginning of the end.

[redirish28]

26. My wife is deeply hurt and is crying for those in the LGBT community she knows can't

cry loudly today.


She realized the 2nd week Obama wasn't all he promised to be on the Campaign trail but she never thought he would do this. She prayed his views on prop 8 was him being new to the office and trying to find his Presidential style but now this leaves no doubt in her mind.

[Plucketeer]

27. Well - there you have it.

I wasn't a big proponent for our candidate, but he was the only thing I could vote for in '08. This is one more confirmation that my wariness was not unfounded. This, the subsidizing of health insurance companies, the continuation of illegal surveillance, the continuing of Bush era education "fixes", the jellowy attempts at ending fighting and occupation abroad..... This will be a lesson to those woooed by the non-professional left in the future. Take BIG grains of salt with every promise made. BIG grains.

[DallasNE]

30. I Have Mixed Feelings On This

On the one hand I sympathise with Obama's point about obeying the rule of law which means enforcing the laws passed by Congress. But this stay request is odd because the court ruled on the legal basis of the law and in this case a Judge has said there is no legal basis because it violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. This has always been the problem with this law, i.e., it indeed flies in the face of those two Amendments. That part is a no brainer. The Senate bill being filibustered by the Republicans would cancel DADT. Obama should have used this ruling to press the Senate to pass the Defense appropriations bill by pointing out that DADT violates the Constitution rather than getting technical over procedure.

[No Elephants]

35. No. That is not what obeying the rule of law means.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. But Val didn't mean it, and Donnie is alright and Rick is

America's minister, and blah, blah, blah.

[mochajava666]

33. Another example of Obama's betrayal of his base

At this point, I don't see how I could vote for this hypocrite. The only change I see is the person in the white house. Policy hasn't been distinguishable from Bush-Cheney.

Is Obama a good leader for this country? Don't ask. Don't tell. It's too depressing.

[Iowa]

41. I won't vote for him again. I don't vote for Republicans. Never have, never will. No exceptions...

If this sell-out is nominated again, I'll write in Alan Grayson, Al Franken, or Dennis Kucinich.

[cyr330]

45. Me too

I know he would win California anyway, and I will vote for whatever person is running against him in the primaries. In the general election, I may have to write in Mickey Mouse.

[mitchtv]

39. Is anyone suprised?

not me

[villager]

40. sadly, no.

n/t

[CreekDog]

46. U.S. asks judge to let military discharge gays

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(10-14) 14:42 PDT RIVERSIDE -- The Obama administration asked a federal judge today to allow military authorities to resume discharges of openly gay and lesbian personnel under the "don't ask, don't tell" law while it appeals the judge's ruling that declared the law unconstitutional.

Justice Department lawyers requested a stay from U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of Riverside, who ordered an immediate halt Tuesday to all discharge proceedings and investigations under the 1993 law.

The administration appealed Phillips' ruling today to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Government lawyers told Phillips they would seek a stay from the appeals court unless she suspended her ruling by noon Monday.

"Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits commanders from asking service members about their sexual orientation but requires those who disclose that they are gay or lesbian to be discharged.




Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/14/BA351FSS2A.DTL&tsp=1

---

That's what the appeal means and that's what it looks like.

[Divine Discontent]

47. vile...

and disrespectful to their service...

[HillbillyBob]

48. We might as just about as well left godam gwb there

Obama you can kiss my a$$. I lost my career to this fucking witchhunt in 82 I lost a great deal of money, my retirement and my reputation. Yea it was prior to dadt, it was worse having nsa snooping in my home and following me around.
I have been leaning this way and that about going to the polls, but you sob I will not vote for you again. I ll go to the polls this coming week and vote D but in 2012...i ll skip voting for resident.

[Iowa]

52. +1

[ClarkUSA]

49. There is no easy out. Walter Dellinger was on the Rachel Maddow Show making this case.

The Justice Dep't.'s orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress is constitutionally sound. Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. He's saying that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[Divine Discontent]

50. ah, yes... an extra helping of anti-Gay politics from the Obama Admin. Open wide and swallow!

how many times do ya all have to be hit in the head before you say, "enough!"

[kpete]

53. Pentagon halts enforcement of gay ban amid legal challenge Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/20

Source: McClatchy

Pentagon halts enforcement of gay ban amid legal challenge

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon Thursday halted enforcement of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy pending an appeal of a federal court order prohibiting the government from expelling gays and lesbian soldiers who disclose their sexual orientation.

The Obama administration also on Thursday asked U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips to stay her order, issued Tuesday. It's unclear, however, whether Phillips will do so.

The government last month asked her not to issue an injunction against "don't ask, don't tell" after she found that the 17-year-old policy, which bars gays and lesbians from disclosing their sexual orientation, violated service members' First Amendment rights. Phillips, however, issued the injunction on Tuesday.

If Phillips rejects the stay request, the government still could appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court, but there is no certainty on how either court would rule.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/14/102075/pentagon-halts-enforcement-of.html#ixzz12O7WhZNN

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hendo]

56. How dare a FEDERAL judge exercise her power of judicial review

HOW DARE SHE!

[No Elephants]

59. LOL

[Laughing Mirror]

67. A delicate dance?

Song and dance, more like it.

[bluestateguy]

55. Now I'm confused

"Halts the ban...stay the halt on the ban...lift the injunction on the ban :banghead:

All these damn double negatives.

[No Elephants]

63. You really don't understand what happened?

[bluestateguy]

70. I understand, I just have to sit down and carefully read all of the unfolding developments

And double negatives tend to confuse me.

[JustinL]

58. So why hasn't the sky fallen yet? The DOJ thinks it should have.

The precipitous changes to military policy required by the Court's injunction would result in a host of significant and immediate harms to the recognized public interest in ensuring that the Nation has strong and effective military operations...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/reports_doj_will_ask_for_stay_of_dadt_injunction_p.php?ref=fpa

[No Elephants]

65. Well, we haven't won a war this week.

[Le Taz Hot]

68. Dejavu

It's the IWR all over again. It was do or die time for my Senators back then. I haven't voted for Feinstein since. This was do or die time for this administration. He's seen my last vote.

[Evasporque]

71. Fourth down time to punt....

The gay political football.

I feel bludgeoned.

[grahamhgreen]

72. One can only conclude he wants the Dems to fail in November - which is why we must vote

Only by having a huge majority will O be unable to blame it on others

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Excellent point.

Agree.

[Lorien]

76. Yep. If anyone is pissed with this administration they should "punish" them by getting

MORE Dems into office. An even bigger Dem majority would f*ck up team Obama's pro corporate agenda, and they would have no one to blame but themselves for any of their failures (many of which they really see as triumphs).

[Vidar]

77. Obama is a "values" president. Unfortunately his most obvious values are cowardice & double-dealing.