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

[democracy1st]

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.

Nicholson's statement echoed similar arguments from gay-rights activists (including Ted Olson, the Bush administration's solicitor general) who have challenged the notion that the DoJ must defend the laws on the books, regardless of how objectionable they are. But there is an important political nuance that separates DADT from the park service's regulation and guided the department's thinking with respect to both.

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 it."



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

[tomm2thumbs]

1. blood-boiling hypocrisy

nothing less

[nofurylike]

2. it seems you missed a vital part of that article, and pertinent law:

i hope you'll read the rest. it makes a big difference.



-snip-

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 ."

-snip-

This is not a distinction without a difference. On Wednesday, the Associated Press quoted a number of prominent legal figures, including former solicitor generals (though not Olson), who affirmed that the Department of Justice has to execute acts of Congress or risk open legal quarreling between the executive and legislative branches. There are exemptions. But they are rare.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on condition of anonymity, a top legal scholar stressed that the DoJ is acting consistently with respect to DADT and the park service laws. The same informal guidelines that guide department policy with respect to congressional law don't necessarily hold true with respect to administration regulations or orders.

"My hunch would be that the clue is the idea of a regulation," said the scholar. "DADT is a law passed by the Congress of the United States. And the park service was an administration regulation, which has been promulgated by administrative procedures. My hunch would be, that that differentiation is significant."

***


peace

[Touchdown]

8. Afrikaners also talked a lot about "The Law" in the 1980s.

Just sayin'.

[nofurylike]

9. i'm on the other side. i am a lesbian talking about the law, and i

want that repeal to be permanent. and in the case of an act of congress, that takes congress repealing it.


peace

[Touchdown]

11. Much could be done prior to that by exec orders, and no useless studies.

An act of congress to repeal DADT will be improbable after November. Congratulations.

Also, Why do you always proclaim that you're a lesbian with every enabling post or yours as if you're the only fucking GLBT person on here? I'm a gay man, and a veteran who had to hide when I was in the military. That doesn't give me any special qualifications, any more than you.

[nofurylike]

12. it seems you are the one who's fishing for congratulations.

how odd. i post that i am a lesbian to stand as a lgbtq... who is not being tricked into acting against my own best interest by log cabin repukes and other right-leaning operatives. - in solidarity with other lgbtq...s who understand what is being done here.

and, since you seemed unaware of the fact, i stated it.

no, you didn't have to hide. you chose to hide.


peace

[Touchdown]

15. What was that gibberish you just said?

Are you accusing me of being tricked? Are you accusing me of being a Log Cabinette? Are you saying that I don't understand what is being done? I know exactly what political opportunism and stonewalling looks like.

If I wanted to keep my job in the Army (I was under the outright ban, not DADT), I had to hide. Do not condescend to tell me what my life was like.

Piece

[Hannah Bell]

3. since when is ted olson a gay-rights activist? i missed that revelation.

[democracy1st]

4. Link to thinkprogress about Ted Olson & Gay Marriage

Ted Olson On FNS: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/wallace-olson/

[democracy1st]

5. Ted Olson: ‘It Would Be Appropriate’ For Administration Not To Appeal DADT Injunction

Last night, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily granted the government’s request to stay a federal district court’s injunction of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, potentially allowing the Pentagon to again ban gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. LGBT advocates and a growing number of Democrats had urged the White House not to appeal the ruling and this morning, Ted Olson — former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush — agreed with this emerging consensus:

“It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law,” said former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state attorney general have both declined to defend the law in court.

“I don’t know what is going through the Obama administration’s thought process on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Olson said. “It would be appropriate for them to say ‘the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.’”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/olson-injunction/

[Hannah Bell]

7. the world turned upside down.

[nofurylike]

10. log cabin repugs saw a way to pull a large voting block away

from its own best interest.

they do that kind of brokering of human lives.


peace

[jonnyblitz]

13. LGBT Obama supporters who put their Obama worship over

the good of the community are just as fucking bad, IMHO.

[nofurylike]

14. voila. nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

17. He has been for quite a while, surprisingly.

He worked on the Prop 8 trial. He also supported the building of the Mosque in NYC, saying that we cannot allow one horrible incident like 9/11 turn us into hateful people.

He's been very surprising lately. Maybe he woke up after the death of his wife. Maybe he faced some truths he was not willing to see before, assuming this is a change in his views, which I admit I don't really know. Like maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Bush et al had tried to stop it, or if our policies in the ME weren't making people angry at us.

Whatever it was, he appears to be quite progressive on a number of issues.

Here's a link to how he defended Gay Marriage to Chris Wallace on Fox:

Ted Olson: Proposition 8 Decision "Judicial Responsibility in its Classic Sense"

"Where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?" asked Wallace.

"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the Constitution, Chris?" replied Olson.

"The Supreme Court has looked at marriage and has said that the right to marry is a fundamental right for all citizens. So you call it interracial marriage and then you could prohibit it, no? The Supreme Court said no. The same thing here," Olson argued.

"The judge after hearing three weeks of testimony and full day of closing arguments and listening to experts from all over the world concluded that the denial of the right to marry to these individuals in California hurt them and did not advance the cause of opposite sex marriage," Olson added.

"This is what judges are expected to do. It's not judicial activism. It's judicial responsibility in the classic sense," emphasized Olson.

I don't know if always held those views but he seems to believe in equal rights for everyone, including Muslims. Not the usual positions of a far right Conservative.

I believe they won the trial on Prop 8.

[TexasObserver]

6. recommend