Obama Admin Gives Lesbian Service Member Her Day in Court

[ccharles000]

On the heels of a week which saw the Obama Administration taking heat from the LGBT community for not being proactive on our issues, comes news that an Administration decision has set the stage for the most profound legal challenge yet to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."


In an article in today's Wall Street Journal, reporters Jess Bravin and Laura Meckler examine the decision by the Obama Administration to allow an important deadline to pass in the case of Witt v. United States Air Force. The lawsuit brought by Air Force Major Margaret Witt, a lesbian, challenges her dismissal from military service under the congressional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law banning openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service.


The Obama Administration's decision to allow the appeals deadline to expire means the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case will stand and the proceedings will be remanded to the district court for trial. Once at trial the federal government will be forced to present, for the first time in open court, evidence supporting its position that a gay service member is a disruption to her unit's good order and discipline. For the first time ever, the government's argument supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be exposed to the light of day and to the ridicule of both the courts and the American people.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11056/obama-admin-gives-lesbian-service-member-her-day-in-court

[wolfgirl]

1. This is great news!

Although I wish Obama would come out in some major public way to finally rid the country of this awful law...What I suspect is Obama is using the judicial system to address these types of issues in such a way as to set precedent and interpret law.

What better way to assure that the Constitution and rule of law are upheld.

However, I still think it is incumbent upon us the hold our Sens & Reps accountability. We should be calling them daily and reminding them of their obligation to uphold the rights of all people - gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, straight - everyone!

[Orsino]

5. Obama has richly deserved criticism for supporting discrimination...

...but I have long hoped to see some kung fu from him. Forcing the government to provide evidence that open homosexuality damages military discipline is potentially the way to win here.

It depends, of course, on what the court chooses to accept as evidence. Will it be enough--again--for a parade of uniformed officers simply to assert that homosexuality is harmful?

[vaberella]

8. In lieu of this news...

How much criticism...when this comes out and does something else. He's waiting for his time to basically attack legislation that goes against human rights. He knows what will happen to the nation in this sort of case and he's taking it head on.

[goclark]

18. Yes it is great news!

Yes!

[pleah]

2. K&R

[realitythink]

3. Her job could be saved with a stroke of a pen

Executive order would put a stop to DADT. Obama is afraid to step up and defend the gay community. Plain and simple.

[vaberella]

6. Is that you're understanding?

This is not about a stroke a damn pen. It's to force the hand of change through as O has said in the past, "minds and hearts."

[TheWraith]

11. No. Repealing DADT requires congressional legislation.

And past that there are constitutional complications by allowing gay people to serve openly without providing for partner benefits.

[snowdays]

20. Obama could stop the process NOW--but

Congress would eventually have to change the law (or sit on it, or reaffirm it).

[TheWraith]

30. If he puts a hold on it, even if that's legal, nothing else will ever be done. Period.

First off, it's still not clear whether the President can order the military to ignore military law. If it is, then that's not exactly reassuring in and of itself, but moving on. If Obama were able to suspend it, the motivation of Congress to do anything drops to zero, and the policy never gets removed.

[TheBigotBasher]

44. Yes He Can

President Obama has Congressional authority under Title 10 United States Code 12305 to over ride any HR actions in the interest of national security.

Preventing the dismissal of highly experienced Military Officers at a time of armed conflict seems to me to be in the interest of National Security.

[HopeOverFear]

17. And the next president could reverse it with a stroke of HIS pen

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Exactly right. The point is to divest the power of the presidency

to restore the balances contemplated in the Constitution.

To finally end the Cold war, which saw the most expansive and long-lasting power grab by the executive branch in our history. There's only one way to do that: reduce the "pen strokings," especially those that justify themselves behind the utterly inflated title of "Commander-in-Chief."

You either want an imperial presidency or you don't. You don't get to have it for issues that you like, and decry it for issues that you don't.

[HopeOverFear]

26. This needs to be repeated

You either want an imperial presidency or you don't. You don't get to have it for issues that you like, and decry it for issues that you don't.

That's right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Exactly right. The point is to divest the power of the presidency

to restore the balances contemplated in the Constitution.

To finally end the Cold war, which saw the most expansive and long-lasting power grab by the executive branch in our history. There's only one way to do that: reduce the "pen strokings," especially those that justify themselves behind the utterly inflated title of "Commander-in-Chief."

You either want an imperial presidency or you don't. You don't get to have it for issues that you like, and decry it for issues that you don't.

[liquid diamond]

42. Great point. I'm tired of assholes calling Obama a homophone

or anti-gay because he won't use an executive order to address DADT. He's patient and a thinker. People ought to know that by now.

[Deja Q]

32. Which has or has not happened yet. Right now, people should be very happy.

The future is not immutable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Imperial Presidency, hooray!

Obama seems intent on divesting power from the Presidency in order to resume the proper balance of powers set out in the Constitution. That means letting the courts deal with issues that are the province of the courts, even when our own problems could be solved by the stroke of a pen. It's not easy to reverse 60 years of absolute usurpation of the Constitution by the executive branch. As for the Commander-in-Chief business, it is precisely through this despicable imperialistic vehicle that the imperial Presidency was foisted on the American polis in the first place, so reverting to it for acts that we "like" seems remarkably unprincipled, you ask me.

[Fire1]

28. An 'executive order' is only good until the next administration

comes in and changes and/or reverts it back to it's original status. If it's going to stick and stay it will have to go through congress.

[Number23]

39. Exactly. Jack Cafferty had a great editorial on CNN yesterday

where he skewered the Bush administration for (among many other things) their reckless and inexcusable use of executive orders and privilege. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/cafferty.bush.administration/index.html

And now some want Obama to do the same when the best course of action is anything that gets rid of this pointless, amoral law PERMANENTLY. And the only way that will ever come close to happening is for the law to be repealed through Congress and signed by the President.

[ecstatic]

29. Would the change last or be reversed in 2012?

Do you want lasting or temporary change?

[Hippo_Tron]

35. According to one legal analysis, yes

I have a feeling the White House Counsel's office and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel are telling the President otherwise given the fact that DADT is the law.

[snowdays]

4. So, does Obama think he has a case--to allow this to go forward??

[vaberella]

7. That's the whole point...there is no case.

The state has no case to present. I thought that was stated in the article. They're doing it to show that there is no case.

[snowdays]

10. Yes, it did say that there would be not case.. ..

But, that is not what I asked. I am wondering if the WH thinks they do have a case??

[vaberella]

13. I thought it implied they didn't have a case.

This is to bring this whole sordid non-sense to life. The state can literally say there is no case here and show that DADT is unconstitutional.

[snowdays]

15. You are only buying into the interpretation of the blogger.

[eggplant]

12. A stroke of the pen can be reversed in the future

A court ruling ends the discussion.

[vaberella]

14. Sobering, and completely right. n/t

[vaberella]

9. K&R....well I wonder if that clears the fact that O is a bit ahead of us on things.

Good job. Pretty impressive. I had hope he'd come through and this says he just might.

I'll kick this to keep on the first page.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. Amen

This is certainly a unique way to challenge this but this could probably be considered just another example of how Obama is "playing chess" and, once again, is several moves ahead of his opponents/detractors. In retrospect, this approach is actually quite logical for him since he is a former constitutional law professor.

Also, in response to an earlier post, no, I don't think a parade of uniformed military officers simply saying that KNOWING whether or not a service member is gay or lesbian is going to be "enough" for a courtroom. That sort of thing might (still) work in Congress but I would think that the courts are going to want to see real evidence of a "compelling reason" why gays and lesbians- whom are already serving with distinction and without disrupting the morale/cohesion of the armed forces. The Justice Department is going to have to somehow prove that KNOWING whether or not a service member is gay or lesbian is going to disrupt the morale/cohesion of the armed forces and I just don't think that they'll be able to do it. Unless I'm mistaken, both Israel and UK (if not more countries) have gays and lesbians serving openly and their military AFAIK works fine.

One other point about this case that I noted last is that it seems like the military actually started an investigation into her sexual orientation, which I thought was forbidden by DADT absent a disclosure of her sexual orientation, so it appears that the military actually violated the law in this case.

[Clio the Leo]

25. As our boy Tweety would say.........

..... HA!!! :)

Why would THIS suddenly clear up the idea that the President is more enlightened on something than we are when the last 10 topics that he ALSO was ahead of us on didn't?

The Internets is a Utopia for arm-chair quaterbacking. lol

Either way, still good news.

[TahitiNut]

19. Well, let's see the Obama people take a Washington Generals posture ...

... vs. Major Witt as the Globetrotters.

[dgibby]

21. The counter-argument to the "good order and discipline"

argument would be to show the harm done to the military when it's deprived of the skills/talents/knowledge of it's GLBT members.

[Soylent Brice]

27. excellent!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. As someone who was raised by a black gay male, I am a staunch supporter

of gay marriage and extended civil rights/liberties for LGBTs. However, I don't understand why we supporters cannot accept that the administration cannot pursue this right now politically. I'm not convinced that he'd even get enough support from Dems in the Congress. Why not wait until AFTER the midterms when we can get more progressive Dems in the majority?

I sometimes feel that we can be unreasonable at times. I am fully confident that Obama will do the right thing; there is nothing in his actions or words that would demonstrate the opposite. We just need to be patient and have faith.

[noamnety]

34. hahahahaha

After the midterms: "I don't understand why we supporters cannot accept that the administration cannot pursue this right now politically. Why not wait until AFTER the 2012 elections, when this won't put his re-election at risk?"

The best time to fight for civil rights is ALWAYS 2 years into the future, never now.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. Sadly, I believe that the majority of Americans are bigoted particularly on this issue.

Until that changes, you can attack me all you want but it still doesn't negate that fact. We have to work to change people's attitudes. It's happening, but very, very slowly.

I think we still see change in our lifetime.

[noamnety]

43. The quickest way to change attitudes

is to change the law and let people live with it.

I do a lot of eye rolling when people say we can't possibly pass liberal policies now, not when we control the house, the senate, and the white house.

That is code for "never."

It's right up there with people who justify hanging onto bigoted laws by saying it's right to keep them because most people are bigots. (Oh, wait, you did that below, too.)

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

You can pretty much just change white to straight, and negro to gay in that passage.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. We have the House, Senate and the White House but not enough liberals

to make change. Sadly the Democrats who have the most influence tend to be DINO's in the form of Blue Dogs or DLCers. They will cave and vote right along with the Repukes on this issue.

We cannot afford to lose all of the political gains that we enjoyed since 2006 because people are still bigoted in this country.

I think minds change first; then, we have the power.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Let me expound on my point. This new PEW Center poll was released today.

In it, there is good news and bad news for liberals. While the Democrats have experienced increased gains in party affiliation and the Republicans continue on their downward spiral, the percentage of the public identifying as liberal has not increased. It is still 19%, compared to 37% of Americans who call themselves conservative, and 38% who identify as moderate. More bad news: the new Gallup Poll released this week showed that for the very first time, there are more pro-lifers in this country than pro-choicers. The conservative facists seem to be winning the Culture War on these two issues...for the time being.

There's nothing that we can do about the conservatives. But we have to work to persuade the moderates--a majority of people in this country--that they have to change their attitudes towards gays in this country. If we can bring over a significant amount of moderates, we are doing well. But if the Democrats continue to shift right of center and capitulate to the Republicans, then we will continue to lose this battle.

<snip>

Thomas B. Edsall Edsall

Dems Making Massive Gains As GOP Deteriorates: Pew Poll
05-21-09 10:20 AM

From 2002 to 2009, voters' partisan identification has moved from virtual parity -- 43 percent Republican and 43 percent Democratic at the height of George W. Bush's popularity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- to a massive Democratic advantage today of 53 to 36, a 17 percentage point split, by far the largest difference in the past two decades.

While Republican identification has nosedived, the percentage of voters who say they are conservative has remained consistent through this decade. In 2009, 38 percent of voters described themselves as moderate, 37 percent as conservative and 19 percent as liberal -- the same split found in every Pew survey over the past nine years.

While Democrats have made substantial gains in the partisan identification of voters, the party does not have a clear mandate to move to the left across the board, the survey found. Although the Pew findings represent good news for Democrats, there are some costs to their gains. Many of the new Democratic voters are not as liberal as traditional party loyalists, so that support for such initiatives as expanded health care, progressive taxation, and a stronger safety net may face opposition from within party ranks.

Independent voters, many of whom have become Democratic "leaners" providing crucial margins on election day, fall right between the two partisan camps. More worrisome for the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders is the Pew finding that "the overall balance of public opinion on the government's responsibility to provide for the needy has shifted to the right" despite the onset of a severe recession.

The survey found that "the share of Americans overall who favor helping more needy people even if it means greater debt has fallen from 54 percent in 2007 to 48 percent today, and there is a comparable drop in the share who say the government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep (from 69 percent in 2007 to 62 percent today). This rightward shift is starkest among independents. Today, just 43 percent of independents say the government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt, down 14 points since 2007. And over this period the number of independents who favor guaranteeing food and shelter for all has fallen 13 points from 71 to 58 percent."

On cultural -- as opposed to economic -- matters however, the country appears to be moving decisively towards greater social tolerance: One of the biggest attitudinal changes over the past two decades among voters, Pew found, has been on public views towards homosexuals. The percentage of people who say "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals" has fallen from 51 percent in 1987 to 28 percent this year. At the same time, the percentage who do not think school boards should be empowered to fire gay teachers has grown from 42 to 67 percent.

</snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_206249.html

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I don't agree that that is a politically good strategy

One, there is no guarantee that our numbers will increase after 2010, in fact history says they will decrease.

Secondly, there is no better time to make a political argument to end DADT. At a time when we are fighting two wars and preparing to send more troops into Afghanistan we can't afford to dismiss any qualified soldier, sailor, marine, or airman for something as trivial as their sexual orientation. Make this a national security issue and call anybody who dares oppose it weak on national security.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I do agree with you on every point. I just think bigotry still rules the order of the day.

It makes me very, very sad. I think the Republicans will trap Obama as they did to Clinton.

[Neecy]

41. so we should give in to bigotry?

First, there is overwhelming support in the country to get rid of DODT. Do you really think that a small handful of bigots should set the agenda?

Personally, I've lived with their hatred all of my life and I'm not a bit afraid of them. You shouldn't be, either.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I won't believe it until I SEE that people have changed. Yes, they are saying that DODT

is ineffective, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll follow through on the policy. And if they do, I remain unconvinced that it will happen before 2010.

[Wednesdays]

33. K&R

:kick:

[Number23]

40. Hallelujah! I'd PayPal ol' girl some money to her legal fund if that means we

can get rid of this foolishness even sooner.

Happy to rec