Obama administration argued DADT “rational” policy

[William769]

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today, missing it’s opportunity to overturn the discriminatory 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.””

While it’s certainly disappointing that the Supreme Court would choose to let this opportunity to challenge the Constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell pass, the Obama administration’s contribution to the case is even more problematic.

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

I wonder how many more campaign promises he's going to shit on?

[Cant trust em]

1. It's fair to turn up the heat on the administration on this

Maybe what they're saying is that constitutionally it holds up, but is still bad policy. Until I hear more from them on this, I think we should all be disappointed in their current stance.

[boppers]

2. "rationally related to ... discipline and cohesion" is not the same as "rational"

The different words mean different things.

[William769]

4. Thanks for the grammar point

Any opinion? Or was that all you needed to do?

[boppers]

9. It's not a grammar point, it's a legal one.

Confusing the two tends to create difficulties.

Likewise with confusing morality, and law.

[joeybee12]

10. Again, How?

Geesh, these hit and run legal experts around here amaze me...say something withouth backing it up.

[boppers]

22. See below.

This isn't complex.

[HamdenRice]

23. "rationally related" is a legal term of art that means "govt can do this without court review"

The "rational relationship" test is a test of judicial power to conduct oversight of a legislative or executive decision. I realize it doesn't sound like what it says. It doesn't necessarily mean that the policy under review is "rational" in the broader sense that laymen use the word.

Once a court says that a policy has a "rational relationship" to a legitimate governmental goal, they are saying, "it's none of our business" as a court.

I could explain this, but I'd have to go through 100 years of legal history, including footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case of 1938.

[joeybee12]

7. How?

Either way, you come to the same conclusion by saying the policy is rational in one respect, then it's a rational policy. Pretty freaking amazing the conortonists here bending over backwards and reaching for the Kool-Aid at the same time.

[boppers]

17. Restricting freedom of speech, by military members, has been considered rational for over 200 years.

Lots of precedent on this one.

The administration argued that it had the right to set policy regulating speech of US soldiers.

Somebody wanted to argue otherwise, and the SCOTUS refused to hear it.

[dsc]

55. in point of fact that is both accurate and worse

He is essentially saying that anti gay discrimination should have the most permissive test of legality. Given that he is a constitutional lawyer his holding of that view scares the daylights out of me.

[vaberella]

3. I'm wondering how many of the like threads you're going to create before you get tired? n/t

[William769]

5. As many as it takes.

You may not care about peoples civil liberties but others do. :eyes:

On Edit: I have made two. How many threads have you made using your pom poms?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Hey, welcome back Will!

We agree on this one. We both want dadt swept away. So does the president. I guess the difference is in terms of when and how.

P.S. The "pom pom" snarkiness has grown tiresome.

[William769]

18. Then why did he argue for DADT

Why not just keep quiet? Sorry I'm not buying your arguement anymore.

[Thrill]

26. The DOJ is responsible for defending the

laws of the land. Their job isn't to legislate.

[William769]

29. Not their job to legislate?

So Obama Administration has not asked Congress to do anything on anything? Next you will want to sell me the Brooklyn bridge.

[Thrill]

34. I believe Gibbs said they are already working with Congress

So until Congress repeals it. The DOJ's job is to defend it. Got it?

I'll be right with you, if DADT is passed by Congress and Obama puts off signing it or vetoes it. Until then, he has made it clear he is for repealing it.

[William769]

35. Once again why can' Obama speak out about it?

Just think of the Presidents back in the 60's whaut would of happened if they stood on the side lines. Got it?

[Thrill]

40. Its only been

4 months. Its not like he's just been sitting around playing with his balls. He's had to deal with more than almost any President in his first few months. I think he clearly wants to get healthcare done before he deals with this. If you can't accept that, looks like you're just going to have to stay pissed off. Got it?

Only thing that matters is that it gets done. Sorry he's not moving fast enough for you.

[William769]

43. Still sidestepping the question.

Why can't he speak up? Whats it going to hurt? How much time out of his day will it take?

"Got it" is getting really tiresome.

[Thrill]

48. Because he's pushing other things now

Nothing gets done if you try to push everything all at one time.

He'll start to talk about it when he thinks its the right time politically.

[William769]

51. Or when he consults with donnie mcclurkin or the Reverand Wright?

I think we have good reason to believe he never will.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Rev Wright is an accepting and inclusive supporter of full equality

for all people. He has stood with the gay community during good times and bad. Obama should be consulting with Dr Wright, but instead he's off with the Rick Warren/McClurkin squad. Big difference.

[jhrobbins]

63. Yeah, but he isn't doing 'nothing' about it-he is actively doing something

against it. Looks like it should take the same time and after all guys, we really don't' believe that Obama is doing all this by his lonesome. He could tell some one (I don't know who handles things like this) to deal with it and report to him and he would then do what he said he was going to do.

[vaberella]

42. What are you talking about? What hasn't he said on LGBT rights?!

What does he have to speak out about? We all know his position, everyone who's heard him and he's already made himself very clear. Secondly, there is division of power and there is burden of proofs and there are also laws. DADT is a damn law...ie they are arguing the law and hence the point that was made earlier while the President feels differently.

I don't like that the fact the Supreme Court through out the case. But the President is working on making changes.

[William769]

45. "But the President is working on making changes"

Thats what this thead is about and it's not the change that he said he would make. And yes it was thrown out in part to Obama.

[vaberella]

58. I don't know what you're talking about in this post. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Is this thread about the changes he plans on making? Because that can be found on his website, in the Brian Williams interview and countless articles.

If you're talking about this post...that is a Supreme Court decision...that is being argued by the DOJ. Obama has nothing to do with that except that this is occuring during his Administration. He's already stated he's in talks with Congress and the Pentagon...he never said the Supreme Court---not that he'd be able to. Secondly as the case states...it's a person arguing against the law of the land. ie, the Burden of proof is on the plaintiff's end not the DOJ. The DOJ is just arguing the law. If the Supreme Court as of right now decides to over turn the case that is because the burden of proof has not be sufficiently met and/or the DOJ pleaded a better case with the law backing them.

All you can call O to argue is a signing of an executive order. There is nothing more he can do because he has ZERO influence on the Supreme Court besides electing the bodies there if a seat is available. That being said...I'm trying to find out what your point is in your statement.

Lastly, he's made several commitments and has proven in the past that he cares and supports LGBT rights, his admonishment of prop 8 is a perfect example.

[boppers]

28. You're missing the point, or want to be missing the point?

His administration didn't argue for DADT. Clear as day.

It argued against somebody who wanted to challenge DADT on constitutional grounds.

Those are completely different things.

If anybody could say anything they wanted in the military, we'd have a heck of a lot more problems than we have now.

[jefferson_dem]

38. Whoa.

Reasonableness. A welcome perspective. Thanks.

[NYC_SKP]

62. Shocking...

In light of the infrequency of reasonableness on this matter, and others.

:P

[jefferson_dem]

33. Honestly, I don't know what political/legal calculations are in play.

I will look into it more. As I've said, I give him till the mid-terms for meaningful movement on DADT. He deserves that, from my perspective. Not yours. No surprise there.. So carry on.

[ruggerson]

57. from my perspective, jd

the worrisome thing is the total lack of bully pulpit leadership on the whole set of equality issues. Not the timing of this or that legislation.

I think we can agree that we both feel he is wrong on marriage equality. But we are in the middle of historic times - we now have six states with full marriage rights. Prop 8 energized a lot of people, both gay and straight. And the Prez says nothing about any of the occurences of the last five months.

Where's the fierce advocate? Why can't he take one afternoon, fly to a Baptist church in the South and give a speech entirely devoted to equality for gays and lesbians? Not a throwaway line or two. Not a silent proclamation. Not a joke at a correspondent's dinner. But an eloquent case for full civil and civic equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

He owes us that. And it would lay the groundwork for legislation to come over the next 12 -24 months.

He needs to lead on this.

[jefferson_dem]

64. I hear you, ruggerson, and share your frustration.

Call me naive. I honestly believe there has to be a method to his avoidance of GLBT issues...for now.

The fierce advocate would be great but the fact is...we will realize equality with or without Obama strong voice. Why wouldn't he want to be on the right side of history?

[joeybee12]

8. How many times are you going to get tired of sticking your head in the sand? n/t

[vaberella]

37. Aye? I don't even know what you're talking about?

You do realize there are several posts for this exact same topic and I've posted on one of them already that was here long before this one. So I don't know what you're talking about "sticking your head in the sand."

[Thrill]

11. Its not a broken campaign promise. How can it be?

When his presidency isn't over yet. Because he hasn't done every thing he promised in the first 4 months, its a broken promise?? Unreal. He's the only fucking President I've ever seen held to that standard.

[Bluebear]

14. "granting a request by the Obama administration" - from the OP. UNREAL is the word.

[joeybee12]

15. He said he would "work" to overturn DADT and DOMA...he hasn't "Worked"

to do that yet...that's a broken promise, and it's apattern of him running from everything he campaigned on...health care, NAFTA...you name it.

[Thrill]

19. His presidency isn't over. Did he say he was going to work to do it

his first few months in office. If not, its not a broken promise.

[joeybee12]

20. NAFTA, Torture Photos, Iraq...I can go on all days about how he said

he was going to do things and has changed his mind.

[Thrill]

24. How can these issues be a broken promise

if his presidency isn't over yet? Obama never campaigned on releasing Torture Photos. He said 16 months on Iraq, but would consult with commanders. Again those pesky facts

[Bluebear]

31. The pesky fact is the Obama is not a "fierce advocate" for GLBT rights. Period.

[Thrill]

36. I think its too early to say.

We're talking 4 months into his term.

[Bluebear]

39. It would take him four SECONDS to sign the executive order.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5806904&mesg_id=5806904

[Thrill]

41. Even the soldier on Rachel's show said Congress needs to act

instead of that. And he's one of the soldiers about to be kicked out.

[Bluebear]

44. Well ask the hundreds of others discharged since Obama's oath what they think, k?

[Thrill]

49. I'm sure half are likely to have the same opinion as him

.

[Bluebear]

59. Go ahead and delude yourself some more.

[katandmoon]

60. So where is Obama's leadership on this issue? NOWHERE. He's just as passive as can be.

He's sure as fuck no Harry Truman or LBJ. He's just a civil rights poser.

[Number23]

66. Please, PLEASE tell me where I can see that.

[William769]

16. It's quite simple

He promised to do away with it, then he argues for it. Stop drinking the kool-aid. ANd yes with broken promises like this, I wish his Presidenct was over. I would rather someone tell me straight up what they are about instead of lying to me just to get a vote.

[Thrill]

21. Nonsense. The role of the DOJ

is to defend the laws of the land. Don't let facts get in the way of your judgment.

If the law was the other way, they would defend it as well

[William769]

25. And who does the DOJ work for?

Let them defend the law of the land all they want! he came come out and say he's against it and to get Congress to see his side , he's not breaking any laws doing that. But like you said don't let facts get on the way of your judgement.

[Thrill]

27. And when Congress repeals it and he signs it

That would be the law of the land and the DOJ will defend it. Did you miss this in school?

[William769]

32. You keep side stepping the question.

Why can't Obama speak out about it.

[Thrill]

46. He already said he wants it repealed. What else should he say?

Timing is everything in politics. My guess is he will start pushing it more when he's ready to push legislation on DADT and Civil Unions. All at the same time. Just like he did with the Stimulus, Credit Card Legislation, and what he's about to do with healthcare. But in my opinion it won't be until Healthcare is done.

If thats not fast enough, I guess you're going to continue to be pissed. My only point is he hasn't broken a promise on it just because he didn't do it his first few months in office.

[William769]

50. If he could have kept his mouth shut, that would have been better.

But what he did was only throw fuel on the fire. But I do realize Obamabots just don't get it.

[Dawgs]

74. No. You don't get it. Hillary, or any other Democrat, would have HAD to do the same thing.

You can complain all you want (mainly because you lost), but it doesn't change how things work in Washington.

[William769]

77. I lost?

A Democrat is in the White House. A bigoted one but still a Democrat.

[Dawgs]

73. The DOJ works for the people. Do you expect Obama to tell the DOJ to not fight for the rule of law?

It sure sounds like it.

[dionysus]

75. he's not a dictator, and you're throwing a damned tantrum.

[William769]

79. Over civil Rights your damn right I am.

And so should everyone else!

[kiva]

53. What a great strategy. No politician can be accused of

breaking a campaign promise until they finish their last term in office...by which point, of course, there is no point to pressure said politician to keep their promises because THEY CAN'T ONCE THEY ARE OUT OF THE OFFICE!

edited to remove unnecessary snark.

[William769]

54. I believe thats been the plan all along

And people keep posting that mantra thinking it will work. Some are actually upset that it isn't working.

[kiva]

56. If only you repeat something often enough, some will think it true. n/t

[Dawgs]

72. Uh, Obama has promised to end DADT. If you want to complain about something else, then fine.

And, where did anyone say anything about "their last term in office"?

[William769]

81. I wish you would learn how to read.

Appearently this thread has gone right over your head.

[Dawgs]

71. Good luck with Will. He/she is still mad at Obama for not letting Hillary take the primaries.

And, you're exactly right. We have no idea of what we will see by the end of his first term, yet some have already called him a failure. It's really quite pathetic.

[William769]

80. Why must you live in the primaries.

Is that all you got? Because you damn sure can't argue a cohesive point in this thread.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Um, the SC wants this to be settled in Congress, as does the Obama administration.

[Bluebear]

30. Of course. God forbid the Executive or the Judicial branch do what's RIGHT.

[high density]

47. The Judicial branch does what's "right" all the time.

And the Executive branch making up their own laws is what Bush did.

[William769]

52. Here is something to ponder, that is if you can take your blinders off.

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

Snip it

1) The executive branch has the authority to suspend homosexual conduct discharges
without legislative action.
The process of lifting the ban on service by openly gay personnel is both political and
military in nature. While research shows that the planned policy change does not pose an
unmanageable risk to the military, how the transition is executed politically can affect
how smoothly the change is implemented. The President has the authority to issue an
executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305
(“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation”), Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of
military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty. We believe that issuing such
an order would be beneficial to military readiness, as it would minimize the chances of
replaying a debate that is already largely settled but could still inflame the passions of
some in the military. Once gay people are officially serving openly in the military, it will
become clear to those with concerns about the policy change that service by openly gay
personnel does not compromise unit cohesion, recruiting, retention or morale. This in
turn will make it easier to secure the passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
(MREA) in Congress, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While it would be
optimal to see lawmakers embrace repeal by passing MREA, it may not be politically
feasible to do so, despite overwhelming public support and Democratic control of
Congress. Conservative Democrats in Congress may oppose MREA, and the White
House may not wish to expend the political capital necessary to overcome their
resistance. The executive option may end up costing the President less in political capital
than the effort needed to push repeal through Congress. And it could help avoid the
emergence of split military leadership which could make the transition bumpier than it
has to be.

[LooseWilly]

67. Don't forget that, under 10 USC Sec 654...

It is up to the Secretary of Defense, who takes his orders from the POTUS, to determine the criterion and manner of investigations that are preliminary to dismissals.

POTUS doesn't even have to use 10 USC Sec 12305 to stop the dismissals... (which some could argue as a move by the Executive to undermine the enforcement of laws and hence as an undermining of Legislative authority/checks and balances). An executive order under 10 USC 654 would allow suspension of the investigations required in the process of dismissals pending Congressional Review of 10 USC 654 (DADT).

If Obama wanted to really move Congress to deal with this... or at least stop firing trained professionals who want to continue serving in the military pending a "re-working of DADT" (or repeal) by Congress... he could do it.

Why doesn't he? Is asking that he postpone firing qualified military personnel until after the law is re-examined really such a "radical" idea?...

[MasonJar]

61. Rachel just showed Obama campaigning and saying he'd get rid

DADT asap. I am tired of his campaign promises being hypocritical, time and again. A change on o few maybe, but not over and over.

[Clio the Leo]

65. You do realize that the "P" in "ASAP" stands for ....

.... "possible." ;)

[LooseWilly]

68. Again... Obama could suspend dismissals by executive order, pending the "P"

10 USC 654 allows the CiC, via the Sec of Defense, to determine the methods of investigations preliminary to dismissals. Obama could simply suspend the investigations pending Congressional Review of a bill in debate on the floor.

Then the "P" could take all the time it wanted, and no one would be dismissed under DADT in the meantime.

Just saying... it's not like he can't do anything while Congress is "busy" with things that are more important to those who aren't being legally fired from their highly trained jobs just for admitting to who they are...

[Autumn]

69. I got to say Reagan and Bush both

came into office and immediately implemented sweeping changes and neither one had the mandate President Obama has, I would like to see him do the same. I understand your frustration.

[Dawgs]

70. Obama hasn't initiated "sweeping changes"?

And, Bush came in after Clinton, when we had peace and prosperity.

[Autumn]

76. Still can't change history

Bush and Reagan implemented changes immediately. President Obama has not. At least not the ones that a lot of Democrats wanted for the last several years.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Bluenorthwest]

83. He promised leadership

And he offers none. He used the most self serving words, when he had no need to do so. His self proclaimed fierce advocacy is simply not fierce and contains no advocacy.
He said give me your votes and I will lead on these issues of equality. We gave up the votes to him, but he is not making good on his end, in any way shape or form.