I have a question about appealing DADT

[CreekDog]

By appealing it, is it possible that the administration may cause it to go to a higher court, perhaps the highest court where it will be found that discriminating against homosexuals IS constitutional and that the administration would then be a party and an advocate to a final, unappealable decision which enshrines DADT and discrimination against homosexuals as constitutional?

How's that going to look?

I'm reading the appeal, by the way: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39348303/DOJ-Request-for-Stay-of-DADT-Injunction

[msongs]

1. there ya go! nt

[meowomon]

2. The Obama sticker comes off my car today.n/t.

Last straw.

[Whisp]

6. last straw.

good thing I'm too lazy to check your post history.
because so many here have a bagfull marked 'last straw' and pull it out a number of times.

[JTFrog]

8. Oh is it still there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8923612#8931490

Just curious.

:shrug:

[CreekDog]

12. heh

when people say stuff like that, they should mean it. :eyes:

[Cali_Democrat]

45. ROFL

:rofl:

[meowomon]

46. Yes, I keep giving him a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance

Tonight, after Rachel Maddow and the explanation, I have once again vacilated. Oh, I just can't quit the man!!!!!

[meowomon]

48. Wow, you really remember me saying that before?

Either you have a really great memory or this is creepy! LOL

I was actually going to video tape the sticker removal, but I keep getting these explanations about why the president is doing what he is doing and of course I fall for it!! I voted for this guy and thought he really was change.

Also, one day at the gas station I locked my keys in my car and a nice young man helped me get my car open and he said he was moved to help me BECAUSE of the stickers on my car.

Finally, the more the teabaggers and rethuglicans pan the guy for being "muslim" or "Marxist", the harder time I have taking the stickers off my car. Some ass even through a cup of coffee at my car because of the Obama sticker on my car. I assume, because the coffee was thrown at the back where the sticker is.

So, I will probably say this a few more times before I am finally able to quit him and put my razor blade to good use scraping the last remnants of my respect for this president off my car. Mea culpa. But I have the prerogative to change my mind because I am a water sign and am very changeable.

[JTFrog]

49. Unfortunately I remember far too much of what I read.

I'm pretty sure I remember a couple months before that you had fallen in love with him again and the sticker was safe for a little while longer.

Hang in there. You'll be glad you did.

[SunsetDreams]

56. GRRRR that should have had a keyboard warning

:mad:


:spray:

[gateley]

3. I don't think it'll come to that if, if I understand it correctly, the Senate gets off

their asses and votes to allow him to use the Executive Order.

I just heard him address this on the MTV Town Meeting. Since this was a specific law voted in, he can't use the Executive Order to 'un-do' it. It must be done by the proper procedure to make sure it 'sticks'.

The House has voted to give him this authority, and he says he thinks he's got the votes in the Senate, but that's where he left it, leaving me to think it's stuck in the Senate. Again.

I heard that his appeal is to get it back on track to ultimately get it REALLY done faster, although I don't think that's been explained very well.

[CreekDog]

4. You don't think it will come to that? Well, now it can...

hmmm.

[gateley]

5. Yeah, that's why I said it. That's just what I think and I've been wrong before.

I was just trying to explain it as I understood it from what Obama said today.

[FLyellowdog]

7. Or could the opposite be true?

It goes to the Supreme Court and discrimination IS declared unconstitutional...that would settle the issue for good. ]

It's all too confusing.

[CreekDog]

9. But the administration would be on the other side

like being on the wrong side of Brown v. The Board of Education

don't get me wrong, i'd be happy with your hoped-for outcome, but it could go the other way and furthermore, the administration will be in the position of working mightily to see that it *does* go the other way.

if this is a chess game, i'm not sure i would have picked this particular side or opponent. :shrug:

[boppers]

71. Bowers v Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.

NOTHING is ever settled for good.

1986:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[jenmito]

10. When Gibbs was asked about the DOJ appealing the Fed. judge's ruling

on immediately ending DADT and its discriminatory practices, Gibbs told the reporter that Obama is for ending DADT through Congress, and will actively lobby Senators during the lame duck session to make it happen. He said that DADT's days are nearing an end, that he thinks it's discriminatory, and that GLBT people should be able to serve openly.

[CreekDog]

11. but the DOJ will be simultaneously defending doing just the opposite

i've heard the arguments.

how do you *feel* about that?

if you and i are going to have any productive discussions, would you please just say, "I f****** hate it..."

say whatever you want after that...just start with that.

everybody just keeps explaining and explaining and few seem to hate what they see. sheesh, can people just say, right up front, i HATE this.

me, i hate this so much that i really can't get to the point where i can excuse it and subsequently justify it. but some here seem to justify before deciding if they really hate it.

[jenmito]

14. I f****** hate it.

But, I understand that the admin. wants the full force of the Congress to end it. And Obama WILL make sure it's done during the lame-duck session. He said so today that DADT WILL be ended on his watch.

[CreekDog]

15. yours is an unusual post

usually they are all one way or another here.

:hi:

[jenmito]

17. If that's a compliment...

I'll take it. If it's not, I reject it. :)

[CreekDog]

18. It is

not to say i agree with your post completely. :)

[jenmito]

20. Thanks...

I thought so due to the :hi: . I'm watching Maddow now and Walter Dillinger is on discussing this. Post #16 explained it well.

[ruggerson]

13. Judge Phillips ruling kills the law right now

so what is the rationale for appealing it?

IF they don't appeal Judge Phillips' ruling the law is dead unless a future Congress and President resurrect it. Wihch is higly unlikely and could also hapopen with legislative repeal.

[ClarkUSA]

16. 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.

[donco6]

19. Then let that hypothetical FUTURE Congress deal with it.

I might start farting rainbows out my ass tomorrow, but hopefully they'll have invented a pill for it.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Um, the present Congress is dealing with it. Or did you forget about that Senate vote?

<< I might start farting rainbows out my ass tomorrow, but hopefully they'll have invented a pill for it.>>

Don't worry, when Hillary takes her rightful place as co-president next to the homophobic asshole who signed DADT and DOMA into law, all of America's troubles will melt away!

[ruggerson]

23. but you were just quoting the "homophobic asshole's" choice for Solicitor General

as the indisputable arbiter of truth.

Can't have it both ways.

[ClarkUSA]

26. So what? I think Al Gore is "the indisputable arbiter of truth" about climate change.

What's your point?

[ruggerson]

30. Clark is a very cool name

where'd you pick it up?

[Unvanguard]

24. The Senate vote that failed?

What happens if it fails again? What's Plan B? Wait another seventeen years?

[ClarkUSA]

28. Blame GOP obstructionism. If you think that's going to be the last vote, you're mistaken.

[Unvanguard]

31. I do blame GOP obstructionism.

But that's not going away either. So, if the lame-duck session vote fails, what's Plan B?

[jenmito]

29. The DOD's "review" will be completed by Dec. There were senators who voted "no"

because they said they thought they should wait for it to be completed.

[ruggerson]

32. But the law is dead right now. Why not just leave it dead?

[jenmito]

34. That was explained well in post #16. n/t

[CreekDog]

36. well do we have to argue that having gays stay in the military hurts our readiness?

does defending the law require us to say that?

or does that seem a bit gratuitous?

also, i see not one female name on any of these documents.

[jenmito]

41. That's not mentioned in post #16. Of course we shouldn't have to argue that, though, IMO. n/t

[CreekDog]

44. we *don't* have to argue that

especially considering African Americans were integrated into the military.

that didn't hurt our readiness.

[jenmito]

52. I know that...

YOU know that, but apparently not enough senators know that.

[boppers]

72. Yeah, African Americans were integrated overnight, right?

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

No long, drawn out process, no studies, no huge policy changes, no training issues, right?

[ruggerson]

37. I don't buy that explanation at all

based on a fear of some future court case that is completely hypothetical?

One guy's theory on a cable talk show?

Judge Phillips has killed DADT.

Let's end this charade right now.

[jenmito]

40. I believe what Walter Dellinger said tonight on Rachel's show.

And SHE seemed kind of comforted by it, too. If you read what Dellinger said, you'd see why letting the ruling of that one judge stand is not the best way to go about PERMANENTLY ending it.

[ruggerson]

43. and what happens if we can't pull it off in the lame duck session?

I'm not willing to gamble people's lives on this.

It's dead now. The discharges have stopped.

Let's move away from the body.

[jenmito]

55. They WILL...

since the excuse for the "no" votes were that the "study" wasn't completed. Didn't Collins and Snowe both say they were for repealing DADT but wanted to wait for the "study" to be completed? I am almost 100% sure others said that, too.

If it's left as-is, with just the judge's ruling, it can too-easily be overturned. But if the worst DOES somehow happen, and the senators don't vote to repeal it, then Obama should sign an executive order that would do the same thing the judge did. But it wouldn't be nearly as strong as if the congress voted for it.

[Unvanguard]

35. That's true. I hope its completion will make them "yes" votes.

But considering that the amendment being voted on would not have implemented repeal until after the review was over anyway, I'm not sure if their sincerity is to be trusted.

I'm not saying it's impossible that DADT will be repealed in the lame-duck session. I'm saying that it's far from clear that it will be, especially given the time constraints and the easily-available excuse of "We should wait until the new democratically-elected Congress takes office." Given the appeal by the Obama Administration, I want to know what they plan to do if the repeal effort fails. Wait longer?

Is there a point at which further waiting becomes untenable?

[jenmito]

42. You're right about what the amendment actually said...

but it was easy to spin. Once it's completed, though, they will not be able to spin it any longer.

The point st which further waiting becomes untenable is after the "review" is completed.

[Unvanguard]

47. So, if the Senate vote fails, what should Obama do?

Since waiting will have become untenable?

[jenmito]

51. If all else fails,

and he's unable to convince enough senators to vote to repeal DADT, (as well as the DOD which will have completed its "study" giving its repeal their stamp of approval), he should use an executive order to do the most he can to effectively kill it (like not allowing anyone else to be discharged).

[donco6]

25. I voted for Obama in the primaries and G.E.

Sorry to disappoint with the "puma" insinuation. But you've been wrong so often these days, it's not surprising.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

59. lol

:eyes:

[donco6]

61. Trying again? Don't be naughty!

You know what happened last time.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Blah, blah, blah...

:rofl:

[donco6]

63. Yeah - WE all had a good laugh, too!

Still are, in fact!

[ClarkUSA]

64. Yeah, a pizza party is always so fun.

;)

[donco6]

65. I wouldn't know.

*I'm* not the one getting posts deleted!

[ClarkUSA]

67. lol

<< *I'm* not the one getting posts deleted! >>

Funny, that's not what the two subthreads I saved to my hard disk prior to deletion show.

[donco6]

68. Really? Why not post them back on here so we can all see? n/t

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

70. Are you calling me a liar?

[CreekDog]

33. I've been accused of PUMA stuff too

which is ironic since I was one of the most vigorous Obama defenders and PUMA attackers on DU (in 2008).

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Unvanguard]

22. Yes, it is possible. That is the worst-case scenario.

One thing will make it impossible: DADT could end before the litigation gets that far, mooting the case.

(Also, as a pedantic note, what you link to is the emergency motion for a stay, not the appeal.)

[Exilednight]

27. Let's say it makes it way to the Supreme Court ...............

with the way the court is stacked to the right, it is highly unlikely that DADT will be reversed.

Currently, the judge ended DADT across the board, but for some ungodly reason, Obama feels the need to overturn the judge's decision. If Obama sat on his hands for the next 60 days, DADT would become part of history and could never again be used to discharge a soldier.

[treestar]

50. This is why Congress ultimately deals with it

They passed it and signed it in the first place.

Republican Presidents would not even try to get rid of it, and might let the decision stand, knowing they can still enforce the policy anyway.

Why would it be found constitutional? It has no rational basis.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Why? Roberts. Scalia, etc

What was the 'rational basis' for Bush v Gore? Are you willing to defend all their decisions as rational? Start with that one, and move on to Citizens United.

[treestar]

57. Well at least finally you are getting to the real point

Then doesn't it become even more important to have Democrats in office, so as not to get more Scalias and Roberts' on the Court? That's where it will end up anyway. And fortunately we now have two Obama appointees. But if we don't keep Congress or gods forbid the Presidency, we can end up with worse. And the question will end there anyway someday. This one district decision doesn't prevent it from coming up from another district.

Also there is likely a body of case law already. No one's looked for that in their eagerness to be victimized by the only party that will appoint good justices. We don't even now how bad/good the case is around here. Because that would take some reading and thinking.

There is a thread around here somewhere, that it's not the end of the world and a leading gay law scholar is of the opinion the law does not even have a rational basis. Why no faith in that argument and thus the desire to cling to one little district as the only possible victory?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. And you avoided mine.

This game of pretending I do not advocate for Democrats in office is insulting to me and to three generations of my family, treestar. Cheap, false, and you have no standing to speak to me in that way.
I offered a very good objection to a point you were making, which you were not able to defend, so you deflect by casting aspersions upon me. Cowardly.
Rather than address what I actually said, you riff on a bunch of presumptions of your own. I made a great point in objection to yours. I was right. Your trash talk does not change that. You put words in my mouth and then argue with yourself.
The other day you posted 'we were trying to explain this to you' and I asked who 'we' is. Are you not one person? Are you part of a 'we' other than DUers here? Do you use the 'royal we'?
You did not respond to that question either, so to you, the one or several, the royal or the symptomatic, a good, good night.

[COLGATE4]

66. You misunderstand what the term "rational basis" means as

regards interpreting laws. Having no 'rational basis' means 'just plain crazy' in layman's terms. In other words, it's a very very low threshold to meet. Having a law declared to have no rational basis is almost inpossible. Certainly not going to happen with DADT.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. That certainly is a possibility

Which is why President Obama wants to repeal is legislatively, not through the courts.