BREAKING: DOJ seeks emergency stop to DADT injunction as Pentagon finalizes repeal

[Divine Discontent]

goin' down swingin' on this I see. sad. keep putting honorable service members through emotional abuse and confusion over this injustice. just sickening.




http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/07/14/breaking-doj-seeks-emergency-stop-to-dadt-injunction-as-pentagon-finalizes-repeal/

The Department of Justice has requested a short-term emergency stay from the 9th Circuit Court, which last week lifted its stay of an injunction halting enforcement of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ law barring gay and lesbian military personnel from open service.

Late last year, in the Log Cabin Republicans v. USA case, Judge Virginia Phillips found the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law and policy unconstitutional, and ordered the military to cease enforcing the law by placing an injunction on the policy. The 9th Cir. later placed a stay on the injunction as the Obama Department of Justice continued to appeal the case. Last week the 9th Cir. agreed with Log Cabin lawyers from the law firm White & Case that there was no need to continue enforcing the DADT policy and that the injunction on the policy should be put back in place.

The move comes as the Pentagon moves into the final stages of certifying the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask,’ passed in December and signed into law. Once the Pentagon, the Defense Secretary and President certify that the military is ready to implement repeal, the last steps in the process of ending the law will follow a 60 day Congressional review period.

“This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, in a statement. “Let me be clear – the president is asking the court for the power to continue threatening servicemembers with investigation and discharge, and the right to turn away qualified Americans from military service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Even if the administration never uses that power, it is still wrong, and the Ninth Circuit was clear that there is no justification for continuing the violation of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support.”

more at link

[Vanje]

1. Why would Obama's Justice Dept do this?

What the hell?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Divine Discontent]

6. some in society don't want anyone to see things like this...

:mad: true believing is an acquired art, I suppose.

[truth2power]

19. I asked that question in another thread. Obama allegedly signed

a REPEAL in Dec. 2010.

Obama supporters always include this in lists of his accomplishments. Yet, now we see the Obama admin. DOJ fighting AGAINST the law Obama repealed???

How can this be? That's all I want to know.

[Tx4obama]

25. The DOJ is fighting against the 9th Circuit Court's order because...

it interferes with the implementation process of the Repeal of DADT law - the one that Congress passed and Obama signed.

The best way to permanently end DADT is by legislation passed by Congress (which is in the implementation process now), not by a Court Order that can be reversed in the future.

[ruggerson]

26. Wrong. The best way is to have it killed by the Courts, Congress and the Executive

The statutory repeal carries no anti-discrimination language (since the military and Obama had it stripped out as a compromise). Therefore a new rightwing President could issue an EO reinstating the ban.

Had Obama left this alone, the repeal would be coupled with the 9th circuit panel's lifting of the stay, thus leaving Judge Phillips ruling as the law of the land. Having DADT declared unconstitutional, COUPLED with repeal, makes it that much harder for a future Repub President to reverse it with an EO.

Instead, we have Obama's DOJ in court today filing a motion that reads in part: that "it has fully defended, and continues to defend, the constitutionality" of DADT "as it exists following enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

This is both tactically stupid and completely offensive. They should have leflt this alone instead of using legally harmful language that could damage gay servicemembers down the road.

[truth2power]

35. Well, that's the problem..the implementation process. I'm going to take a wild guess

that this time next year it still won't be implemented. I think it's absurd. He signed the repeal. Get it done, already!

[Tx4obama]

38. Well, then your guess would probably be wrong.

Obama said a week or two ago that he would sign the certification within weeks.
Then after that there will be only a 60 day waiting period.
So, we're looking at by the end of September it will be completely gone.

[MNBrewer]

50. Can we quote you on that?

"So, we're looking at by the end of September it will be completely gone."

[Pab Sungenis]

54. "Within weeks."

Let me guess. 68 weeks?

Or if he's re-elected, 276 weeks?

This is nothing more than the deep-seated hatred that the President and his DOJ have for LGBT*.* coming through. I guess their latest polls told them they don't need our votes this time around.

[Tx4obama]

65. No, that is incorrect.

On June 29, 2011 Obama said:

"... And in a matter of weeks, not months, I expect to certify the change in policy –- and we will end "don't ask, don't tell" once and for all. ..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/29/lgbt-pride-month-white-house

[Pab Sungenis]

67. We'll see.

For someone eager to change the policy, he's doing his damndest to keep it in place.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

70. Some complicated legal mess

That no one on DU will ever understand or sort out. But someone is using it to get people mad at Obsma over something. It sounds bad, so they are using it to get everyone going :wtf: Because the legal system is not easy to understand, but everyone who does not know what is going on here thinks they do.

[tishaLA]

3. just dumb nt

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Typical of them

They are what they are.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I can't wait for the explanation of this 8-dimensional chess rope a jitsu.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

21. You speak as though DADT is not going to be repealed.

The repeal is still in full effect. The speed is the issue and from what I've read it's to uphold the repeal contract made into law--since Obama signed the paper. I'm sure more information on this will come out. But you're rage is quick and utterly misplaced. The speed is the factor. But rage on.

[villager]

24. well, better misplaced rage than misplaced complacency, in times such as these

Apologize on.

[Pab Sungenis]

55. The repeal is NOT in effect.

The President, Panetta, and the CJCS still haven't issued their certs. And after they do the Republicans in the House have 60 days to block it.

And then when a Republican President takes the Oval in 2013 or 2017 or whenever, with a stroke of a pen gays are out of the military again because Obama had to appeal this case and destroy the Constitutional arguments against DADT.

[vaberella]

20. Get over yourself. There is nothing about chess. It seems to be about upholding the repeal contract.

I posted a CNN article on this topic in post# 17.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. The DOJ could simply not do ANYTHING.

[snot]

8. K&R'd.

[1776Forever]

9. Very sad to see this being done and yet the Wall Street Gangs run freeeeeeee -

Terrible news:(

[Divine Discontent]

10. ugh.. wall street. just hearing about them makes me sick. they got away with billions and laugh!

[chill_wind]

16. And Yoo and Rumsfeld and BushCo et al.

And the CIA gang that destroyed the torture tapes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I don't get it

:wtf:

I know that they want to do it the "right way" (under the specified terms of the repeal law) but if it's been shot down by the courts, the Pentagon has recently given up enforcing it, and certification is just around the corner, just.let.it.die.already.

:banghead:

[benld74]

13. WHy? SOmeone please explain this to me,,,,

[TheKentuckian]

15. There is probably a meeting right now to decide if the super honorable letter

of the law spiel can be utilized or will they have ask for special spin points from HQ.

I recommend escalating the matter to a supervisor/mentor/lead because the letter of the law, straight and true shit is hysterical except I can't laugh because it puts me in "recycling indian" mode with a hole in my heart and a cloud over my soul and super somber single tear misting my cheek too much to crack even a Grinch grin.

[vaberella]

18. See post. # 17. n/t

[vaberella]

17. See post. # 14.

Here is the CNN article which shows you that it's a debate on the deal: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/dadt.reconsideration/

It's not stopping the full repeal of DADT, but slowing it down to end it on the date listed on the deal that was signed. I don't know if that will be upheld. However it might be because it is in the contract signed in the DADT repeal law. But we're still needing more information.

[vaberella]

14. They made a deal that said they'd have to wait for the year.

I sincerely doubt that this will break that deal. This is not something to get upset over because the end of DADT is well on it's end.

[Vanje]

22. Apparently the Ninth Circuit Court does'nt agree

but hey, what do a bunch of federal judges know about Obama's deals?

[Tx4obama]

23. The 9th Circuit Court's orders are not very permanent. Laws/repeals that Congress passes are

more permanent.

The right way to permanently repeal DADT is the way that Congress and President Obama are doing it.

I know that no one wants to hear that - but it is the truth.

[ruggerson]

28. No, it isn't the truth

The statutory repeal carries no anti-discrimination language (since the military and Obama had it stripped out as a compromise). Therefore a new rightwing President could issue an EO reinstating the ban.

Had Obama left this alone, the repeal would be coupled with the 9th circuit panel's lifting of the stay, thus leaving Judge Phillips ruling as the law of the land. Having DADT declared unconstitutional, COUPLED with Congressional repeal, makes it that much harder for a future Repub President to reverse it with an EO.

Instead, we have Obama's DOJ in court today filing a motion that reads in part: that "it has fully defended, and continues to defend, the constitutionality" of DADT "as it exists following enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

This is both tactically stupid and completely offensive. They should have leflt this alone instead of using legally harmful language that could damage gay servicemembers down the road.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Assuming the Supreme Court agrees with the 9th circuit

And given the current makeup of the court, I doubt that will happen.

[ruggerson]

32. they didn't appeal to the USSC

they filed an emergency appeal with the 9th circuit.

[Divine Discontent]

39. thank you for a perfect explanation of why it is offensive, and harmful to servicemembers. some may

not care about them, and call this "just a needed bump", but they are in fact wrong - it is not needed, it is harmful and continues to provide ammo against GLBT serving. I cannot imagine being Gay in the military like some I know personally. I don't know how they do it... well, I do, I lived with a guy and he treated me like a stranger when we were in public because I wasn't afraid to say things like, "Hey, do you want to go see MILK with me tonight?" and he'd turn red.... this is what this bullshit rule does to people... shame on those that back the admin. no matter what they do, even when it's harmful and unnecessary.

[ruggerson]

44. thanks for the OP

it's discouraging, to say the least.

[Lyric]

57. Actually it's the exact opposite. Court rulings are far more permanent than Congressional laws.

If DADT is removed via Congress, another more-bigoted Congress can always come back later and reinstate it. But if it's removed via the courts because it's unconstitutional, Congress can NEVER reinstate it. The only way to get it back is for the SCOTUS to overthrow the 9th Circuit's ruling--something that does not often happen, due to the respect for precedent and the superior legal scholarship of the federal court judges (as opposed to Congress, a body to which even an utter moron like Michelle Bachmann can be elected).

The federal court system is a far more stable agent of the government, and is not subject to the whims of faction and drama politics the way that Congress is. Far better to have the law declared unconstitutional (which takes it out of the hands of our idiot-dominated Congress) than to let Congressional Republicans turn it into yet another political horse that they can ride to re-election on.

If abortion rights were only guaranteed by Congress and not by the federal courts, women would have had those rights revoked years ago. Thank god for the federal court system.

[Vanje]

61. Yes. yes. nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[truth2power]

36. I'm totally confused. n/t

[Ignis]

63. "This is not something to get upset over ..."

Oh, thanks for letting us know!

:eyes:

Those with skin in the game have every right to be upset over this further delay.

[Fearless]

27. What a f*cking surprise. For as much changes so much stays the same.

[mitchtv]

29. He never really loved us

:-(

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

40. Obama is not lying. He is following the Repeal of DADT law stipulatoins that Congress passed.

And if you don't like 'that', as you said 'tough shit'.

[ruggerson]

41. Where in the DADT repeal statute

does it say that the DOJ has to file motions in Federal Appeals Courts declaring DADT "constitutional?"

[Tx4obama]

42. I was replying to the other fellow that stated that Obama was lying.

Your comment has nothing to do with what was being said.

The bottom line is that since Congress passed the Repeal of DADT bill and Obama signed it into law, the president and military have a legal obligation to implement the repeal according to the stipulations within the new law.

[ruggerson]

43. Obama has no legal obligation to have DOJ file a motion that declares DADT "constitutional"

It's a stupid and offensive mistake that can harm LGBT Americans.

[Tx4obama]

46. Are you just assuming that Obama told the DOJ to file the motion or do you have a link?

Eric Holder is a big fella and I am sure he doesn't sit around asking Obama for permission.

[ruggerson]

47. Since Obama had the DOJ re-engineer the brief on the Smelt suit

the last time they did something this tone deaf, it's naive to think that Obama didn't, at the very least, authorize the final call on this.

[boxman15]

33. Let's clear some things up:

The Obama DOJ isn't doing this to stop the implementation of the repeal of DADT. It's because the DOJ wants it to be repealed by the way it was written out in the law passed by Congress. This may or may not make sense. I don't know yet. I'll read more about it today and tomorrow, see where the DOJ is coming from and why they chose this route.

Because right now it doesn't make much sense. Unless the court's ruling is only temporary, this decision is not very smart. It makes the base angry, for reasons based in reality or not, and most of all, it prevents gay patriots who love their country to fight for it. It's just wrong.

I hope there's a good legal reason for this, otherwise it really doesn't make sense to do this.

[ruggerson]

34. Did you read the motion?

In part, Obama's DOJ says "it has fully defended, and continues to defend, the constitutionality" of DADT "as it exists following enactment of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

They should have leflt this alone instead of using legally harmful language that could damage gay servicemembers down the road.

[Tx4obama]

45. Here's a link to another article that explains the DOJ position in a bit more detail

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/07/doj-says-it-is-defending-dadt.html

[vaberella]

52. Please give it's individual post...

Explaining what's going on...these people are utter reactionists on this board that they can't get past the first post. You might have to make things bold to explain that this is part of the contract that was signed---and it must be adhered to, in order to fulfill said contract. I tried to do that...nada.

I highlighted a section below talking about article 654.

The government argues that "§ 654 remains in force by operation of § 2(c) of the Repeal Act, which provides that § 654 'shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by' the Repeal Act 'are met.'" Because of this provision in the repeal act, the government argues, "§ 654 is now a transitional provision that remains in force only until the Executive Branch completes the repeal process."

[Zorra]

64. But...but...my dog ate my homework. Really. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

48. Another Eleventy-Quatrillion Chess Move

Shocked the Admin. is pulling this crap, shocked I tell you (or NOT)..

[terrya]

49. I don't know if DADT repeal will ever happen.

60 days has passed...long passed, by my calendar, after the DADT repeal has passed Congress and signed by the President. And...nothing. Certifictation...that repealing DADT and allowing gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve openly will not affect combat readiness and unit morale....by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...that hasn't happened. And now this.

I will believe DADT repeal when I see it. And I don't know if it will ever happen. This whole thing about some "plan" is increasingly sounding like a bunch of bullshit.

[vaberella]

51. Do you not remember what was signed?

Repeal is not in place until a 1 year study. The year is not up yet. However the repeal is under way. Until then...DADT is still the law of the land, no matter what anyone likes to say. It will end, but that won't happen until around December of this year or Jan of next.

[Pab Sungenis]

56. The 1-year study is over.

It was before the bill was passed.

[Tx4obama]

66. The 60 day clock starts 'after' the 'certification' is signed. Obama signed the 'bill'

that Congress passed.
Obama has not yet signed the 'certification' yet, he will in the next couple of weeks - then the 60 day waiting period starts.

[Pab Sungenis]

53. "Fierce advocate" my ASS!

He's betrayed us AGAIN. I guess they needed more time to work references to pedophilia and incest into the appeal.

At this rate, all the Republicans have to do is nominate someone who says that the government should kill all gays, but do it quickly and painlessly unlike how the rest of the candidates want to do it, to seem a valid alternative.

Mr. President, you might think it's hippie punching, but we have another term for it: gay bashing.

[Renew Deal]

60. I don't understand why they don't just let it go.

What's with all the appeals and injunctions at this point?

[BlueIris]

62. Pathetic. Awful move.

Can't see the silver lining or positive purpose here. At all.

[Bluebear]

68. FIERCE!

[Divine Discontent]

69. well, that's one word for it, BB.

[QC]

71. There are many others, but they must not be said. n/t