California judge rules DADT unconstitutional

[General Zod]

Ohsnap

RIVERSIDE, Calif.—A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.

Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

Government lawyers argued Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and the issue should be decided by Congress.

The injunction was sought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members.

Government lawyers argued that Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and Congress should decide the policy's fate.

The U.S. House voted in May to repeal the policy, and the Senate is expected to address the issue this summer.

"Don't ask, don't tell" prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.

Attorney Dan Woods, who represents the group, contended in closing arguments of the nonjury trial that the policy violates gay military members' rights to free speech, due process and open association.

He also argued that the policy damages the military by forcing it to reject talented people as the country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne argued that the policy debate is political and the issue should be decided by Congress rather than in court.

Six military officers who were discharged under the policy testified during the trial. A decorated Air Force officer testified that he was let go after his peers snooped through his personal e-mail in Iraq.

Lawyers also submitted remarks by Obama stating "don't ask, don't tell" weakens national security.


Read more: Judge: Military's ban on gays is unconstitutional - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16036164#ixzz0z5bnO0m2

Looks like it's off to the 9th circuit. Hopefully it makes it as far as SCOTUS.

[PeZook]

I can't wait to see the terrible political cartoons about it

Very good, maybe it will force the white house to finally outright repeal that stupid-ass policy.

[SirNitram]

Looks like it's off to the 9th circuit. Hopefully it makes it as far as SCOTUS.

I hope someone with sanity can stop the DOJ, as infested by Bush appointees and politically hired idealists at it is, from appealing. It simply leaves the case shut there, ruled unconstitutional.

[D.Turtle]

If it isn't appealed, will it apply to the entire US military, or would it only apply to people serving in (southern) California?

Bu you know it will be appealed anyway - amidst cries of "judicial activism".

[Lonestar]

I'm actually having trouble visualizing that this would be able to be applied to any of the Military, the DoD literally operates under it's own rules.

What, you don't think servicemembers waive constitutional rights when the enlist? They do. It's called the UCMJ.

[Lizzie]

While I doubt this will have any direct effect on DADT ... it still helps that someone in the courts says "Hey you know this bullshit? It's premium level of bullshit, it stinks the most of any bullshit." It tells people this is wrong and gives them "ammo" to fight against it with.

[SirNitram]

If it isn't appealed, will it apply to the entire US military, or would it only apply to people serving in (southern) California?

Bu you know it will be appealed anyway - amidst cries of "judicial activism".

Yea. There will be frantic attempts by all sorts to manufacture legal standing, and as I said, assholian sections of the DOJ may manage to pull it off. But yes, I beleive if a constitutional ruling is made like this and not challenged, it goes into effect. If someone knows better, please correct.

[LionElJonson]

DADT is a Federal law passed by Congress, isn't it? Don't you need the Supreme Court to render a judgement on those, and get them stricken from the books?

Also, moderately amused by the fact that it was Republicans who got this done, while the Democrats in power have been saying they would, while being too incompetent to actually do anything/

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it isn't appealed, will it apply to the entire US military, or would it only apply to people serving in (southern) California?

Bu you know it will be appealed anyway - amidst cries of "judicial activism".

Yea. There will be frantic attempts by all sorts to manufacture legal standing, and as I said, assholian sections of the DOJ may manage to pull it off. But yes, I beleive if a constitutional ruling is made like this and not challenged, it goes into effect. If someone knows better, please correct.

If it is a federal issue ruled on in federal court yeah. Pretty much.

[CaiusWickersham]

DADT is a Federal law passed by Congress, isn't it? Don't you need the Supreme Court to render a judgement on those, and get them stricken from the books?

Also, moderately amused by the fact that it was Republicans who got this done, while the Democrats in power have been saying they would, while being too incompetent to actually do anything/

Federal courts interpret federal law and there is potential for judicial review at all levels. Remember, the Supreme Court is *very* picky about the cases it takes. The 9th could affirm and the Court could deny certiorari.

When dealing with federal judges, remember that politics often take a seat far in the back. They got life appointments, they look at the law and render decisions without fear of petty reprisal from the more political parts of the government. At least that's how it should be, since the "judicial activism means we don't agree with the court's ruling" crowd kicked up a fuss.

[dragon]

The otherday one of the JAG lawers came down wanting us to fix his computer. It was pretty much kaputt so we had to re-image it which takes a couple of hours. So while it was doing that we were talking about this and while civilian courts can't force issues with the military, such as a solider commits a crime on the town the military will deal with it. Now if the civilian courts wants him they have to petition the military.

Federal courts on the other hand have more leeway when it comes to their options. For example when the use of sonar was contested due to whales and the firing on Guam or was it Peurto Rico, they can issue injuctions which are usally appeal by the military.

Now combat situations are a bit different and courts have little they can do.