California judge orders injunction against DADT

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Qwerty 42
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2008
Joined: 2005-06-01 05:05pm

California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Qwerty 42 »

The Trentonian wrote:RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.
Good news, all in all :D. Hopefully Obama doesn't order the DoJ to appeal.
Image Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by General Zod »

Here's some more detail
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal judge Tuesday ordered the government to immediately stop discharges of gay service members under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips found the policy unconstitutional in September. On Tuesday, she rejected an Obama administration request to delay an injunction and ordered enforcement of the policy permanently stopped.

The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the government is under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

The federal government is reviewing the ruling and has no immediate comment, said Tracy Schmaler, spokesman for the Justice Department.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional on Sept. 9 after a two-week nonjury trial and said she would issue a nationwide injunction. But she asked first for input from Department of Justice attorneys and the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

The Log Cabin Republicans asked her for an immediate injunction so the policy can no longer be used against any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world.

"The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country," said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue — not her court.

Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

She said the law violates the free-speech and due process rights of service members after listening to the testimonies of military officers who have been discharged under the policy.

Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her ruling to end the ban — but Department of Justice attorneys are not likely to stay mum since Obama has made it clear he wants Congress to repeal the policy.

"The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal.

Gay rights advocates say they worry they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill earlier this month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

Woods said the administration should be seizing the opportunity to let a judge do what politics has been unable to do.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are gay from serving openly. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Pint0 Xtreme
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2430
Joined: 2004-12-14 01:40am
Location: The City of Angels
Contact:

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Pint0 Xtreme »

Way to go, Mr. Fierce Advocate
White House objects to 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
By:
CNN Pentagon Producer Jennifer Rizzo
(CNN) - Obama administration objects to federal judge issuing injunction to stop implementation of "don't ask, don't tell" policy after her ruling that it was unconstitutional. The government argues the proposed injunction is "untenable," too wide in scope and would cause harm to the military.
Image
User avatar
Master of Cards
Jedi Master
Posts: 1168
Joined: 2005-03-06 10:54am

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Master of Cards »

Qwerty 42 wrote:
The Trentonian wrote:RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.
Good news, all in all :D. Hopefully Obama doesn't order the DoJ to appeal.
Nitpick its a CA Judge, her name is just Virginia. :)
User avatar
Darth Fanboy
DUH! WINNING!
Posts: 11182
Joined: 2002-09-20 05:25am
Location: Mars, where I am a totally bitchin' rockstar.

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Darth Fanboy »

Can someone please fix the thread title? The Judge is named Virginia Phillips, the trial itself took place in Southern California.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."
-George Carlin (1937-2008)

"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting."
-Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Alyeska »

Thread title fixed
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Qwerty 42
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2008
Joined: 2005-06-01 05:05pm

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Qwerty 42 »

Oh, well, that's embarassing :oops:
Image Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
Lizzie
Redshirt
Posts: 24
Joined: 2010-08-05 10:10am

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Lizzie »

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Way to go, Mr. Fierce Advocate
White House objects to 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
By:
CNN Pentagon Producer Jennifer Rizzo
(CNN) - Obama administration objects to federal judge issuing injunction to stop implementation of "don't ask, don't tell" policy after her ruling that it was unconstitutional. The government argues the proposed injunction is "untenable," too wide in scope and would cause harm to the military.
DADT is causing harm to the military you spineless fucks (I speak of the whitehouse.) They're loosing so many well trained individuals just because they're gay. Frankly the short term damage caused by the military pulling the stick so ingrained in it's ass out is much preferable to the continuous long term damage of banning open gays from service.
User avatar
CaptJodan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2217
Joined: 2003-05-27 09:57pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by CaptJodan »

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Way to go, Mr. Fierce Advocate
White House objects to 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
By:
CNN Pentagon Producer Jennifer Rizzo
(CNN) - Obama administration objects to federal judge issuing injunction to stop implementation of "don't ask, don't tell" policy after her ruling that it was unconstitutional. The government argues the proposed injunction is "untenable," too wide in scope and would cause harm to the military.
This kind of sickens me. Even when other people do the work for him and pushes what he claimed to be for, his administration pulls back and calls foul. He campaigned on getting rid of DADT, did he not? This isn't even gay marriage, which he doesn't believe in, it's just part of what he said he'd do. I don't get it.
It's Jodan, not Jordan. If you can't quote it right, I will mock you.
User avatar
Pint0 Xtreme
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2430
Joined: 2004-12-14 01:40am
Location: The City of Angels
Contact:

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Pint0 Xtreme »

Whatever game the administration is playing, most people don't get it. Everyday I see more and more gay-rights Obama apologists start to peel away. If he continues to piss off his base, we might see a new president in two years. And to think the year before, gay-rights activists had to "wait for their turn" only to see a watered-down bullshit of a healthcare bill pass.
Image
User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7555
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Kamakazie Sith »

CaptJodan wrote: This kind of sickens me. Even when other people do the work for him and pushes what he claimed to be for, his administration pulls back and calls foul. He campaigned on getting rid of DADT, did he not? This isn't even gay marriage, which he doesn't believe in, it's just part of what he said he'd do. I don't get it.
He did, and he intended to. The administration wants to do a controlled change. This takes that option away from them.
Milites Astrum Exterminans
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Serafina »

Kamakazie Sith wrote:He did, and he intended to. The administration wants to do a controlled change. This takes that option away from them.
How would such a controlled change look like? Why didn't it start already? What is there to control in the first place.

Frankly, i don't get it. Just get rid of DADT - it won't change a thing other than the fact that people are no longer fired for a victimless crime. I do not seed why a controlled change is necessary, and all the talk about it just seems to come from people who don't really want to change it in the first place and use this as an excuse to buy themselves time.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7956
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by ray245 »

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
CaptJodan wrote: This kind of sickens me. Even when other people do the work for him and pushes what he claimed to be for, his administration pulls back and calls foul. He campaigned on getting rid of DADT, did he not? This isn't even gay marriage, which he doesn't believe in, it's just part of what he said he'd do. I don't get it.
He did, and he intended to. The administration wants to do a controlled change. This takes that option away from them.
It seems like the administration is trying to appeal to the conservatives in order to retain some of the seats in the mid-term elections.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Sephirius
Jedi Master
Posts: 1093
Joined: 2005-03-14 11:34pm

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Sephirius »

ray245 wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
CaptJodan wrote: This kind of sickens me. Even when other people do the work for him and pushes what he claimed to be for, his administration pulls back and calls foul. He campaigned on getting rid of DADT, did he not? This isn't even gay marriage, which he doesn't believe in, it's just part of what he said he'd do. I don't get it.
He did, and he intended to. The administration wants to do a controlled change. This takes that option away from them.
It seems like the administration is trying to appeal to the conservatives in order to retain some of the seats in the mid-term elections.
So basically they still haven't learned anything and they still don't have a spine.
Wonderful.
Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360
Image
User avatar
Qwerty 42
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2008
Joined: 2005-06-01 05:05pm

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Qwerty 42 »

ray245 wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
CaptJodan wrote: This kind of sickens me. Even when other people do the work for him and pushes what he claimed to be for, his administration pulls back and calls foul. He campaigned on getting rid of DADT, did he not? This isn't even gay marriage, which he doesn't believe in, it's just part of what he said he'd do. I don't get it.
He did, and he intended to. The administration wants to do a controlled change. This takes that option away from them.
It seems like the administration is trying to appeal to the conservatives in order to retain some of the seats in the mid-term elections.
This is a good point. The optimist in me is thinking that Obama will wait to announce that they won't appeal this until after the election.
Image Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7956
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Virginia judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by ray245 »

Qwerty 42 wrote:
This is a good point. The optimist in me is thinking that Obama will wait to announce that they won't appeal this until after the election.
Knowing Obama, he probably go ahead with it if the democrats lost a fair number of seats to the Republicans.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Gil Hamilton »

I think its more dealing with the Pentagon than anything else. The compromise was going to be that DADT would be repealed, but the military would first have a shot at doing a comprehensive study first and put their stamp on the repeal as well, which was likely to happen. A judge giving a blanket injunction removes the military from the process at all, and with a change this sweeping in policy, the federal government is practically obliged to appeal it, even if they plan to do exactly the same thing. The White House does want DADT out the door, but they want to do it in such a way that they can claim military approval of the process.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Also don't forget the reflective spineless democrat response to triangulate on conservative voters before a bad midterm year even though it won't win them a single vote and will just suppress progressive turnout.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
HarrionGreyjoy
Youngling
Posts: 52
Joined: 2010-05-02 12:49am

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by HarrionGreyjoy »

I think I'm going to clamp my hands firmly over my ears and pretend the DOJ is appealing the case because refraining for political reasons (even if they're ones I personally agree vehemently with) is a very bad precedent to uphold. Part of the DOJ's job is to defend the existing law to the best of its ability, much as prosecutors aren't really supposed to let a case die because they happen to disagree with the circumstances.

Yes, I know, that's almost certainly not ACTUALLY why they're defending the decision to appeal, but if it helps prevent the executive branch from basically implementing Andrew Jackson-style nullification all over again, I can tolerate this particular mess.
Cecelia5578
Jedi Knight
Posts: 636
Joined: 2006-08-08 09:29pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Cecelia5578 »

Not so fast, says the Justice Department:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 8411.story
Justice Department says 'don't ask, don't tell' ruling will harm troops
The government asks a judge to set aside her decision, though the injunction will be honored until further legal action is taken. President Obama signals that he would prefer Congress to repeal the law.

By Richard A. Serrano, Tribune Washington Bureau

5:25 PM PDT, October 14, 2010

Reporting from Washington
Advertisement

The Justice Department asked a federal judge Thursday to set aside her decision stopping the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians in the military until it can appeal the ruling, saying the decision would "irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States."

Government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Riverside that if she did not lift her order by Monday, they would ask the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt it. If the appeals court in San Francisco fails to act, the government probably will ask the Supreme Court to intervene to prevent an abrupt change to the military, which says it is not yet prepared to handle the transition.

The confrontation comes at a politically awkward moment for President Obama. He opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but now — just weeks before the midterm election — risks alienating his liberal base by seeking to halt the judge's order.

On Thursday at a town hall meeting in Washington, Obama pledged he would end the highly controversial 17-year-old policy for removing homosexuals from the armed forces.

"Anybody should be able to serve, and they should not have to lie about who they are in order to serve. This policy will end. It will end on my watch," Obama said.

But the president acknowledged that he is hamstrung by the fact that the policy is written into law and said "this is not a situation where I can, by the stroke of a pen, end this policy."

In the meantime, the Pentagon said that it would suspend enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" while Phillips' injunction remains in place.

"The department will abide by the terms in the court's ruling, effective as of the time and date of the ruling," Col. Dave Lapan said Thursday.

Under the law, enacted in 1993 under President Clinton, commanders cannot ask about a service member's sexual orientation, but if a soldier volunteers the information, then he can be removed. About 13,000 have been removed so far.

Despite the ruling issued Tuesday that the law is an unconstitutional violation of due process and 1st Amendment rights, the president signaled that he preferred Congress to repeal the law. The House voted for repeal this year, as did the Senate Armed Services Committee. But the repeal was blocked by Republicans on the Senate floor. Now, some in the Senate hope the matter can be reexamined during the lame-duck session this fall.

Clifford L. Stanley, undersecretary of defense for overall military readiness, cautioned that an abrupt transition would ruin the Pentagon's work surveying military commands around the world to determine how best to create a new policy that allows people who are openly homosexual to serve.

The judge's injunction, Stanley said in a sworn declaration submitted with the government's appeal, "will have adverse effects on both military readiness and the department's ability to effect a smooth and lasting transition to a policy that accommodates the presence of openly gay and lesbian service members."

"The stakes are so high, and the potential harm so great, that caution is in order," he said.

Stanley, a 2009 Obama appointee, said a working group of Pentagon officials was still struggling to figure out the best way to run the military without the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but their recommendations are not expected until Dec. 1.

Then, he said, there would be command review and final decisions made on how best to run an efficient military operation while also safeguarding soldiers, sailors and Marines who are homosexuals.

He said military leaders would need time to learn the new policy and how it prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"Without this education and training," he said, "commanders in the field will not have the necessary guidance and will not be able to enforce the new regime in the consistent, even-handed manner that is essential to morale, discipline and good order.

"Equally importantly, service members must know what is expected of them."

Stanley also warned that "a poorly implemented transition will not only cause short-term disruption to military operations, but would also jeopardize the long-term success of the transition. Either outcome would irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States."

He added that gays who took advantage of the ruling could face expulsion if the decision is later overturned and the military decided to move against them.

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative organization that initially brought the suit, said the group would "continue to advocate on behalf of American service members," adding that "if this stay is granted, justice will be delayed but it will not be denied."

In the government appeal, Justice Department lawyers said Phillips' order would require "a precipitous change in policy that threatens the public interest in a strong military." They also argued that her ruling was a setback to "the orderly repeal" of the policy that has been discussed in Congress.

They said that such a quick transition could "harm the government's critical interests in military readiness, combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, good order, discipline, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces."

The government also filed a notice of appeal with the 9th Circuit Court, making clear that it intends to challenge the ruling if the judge does not set it aside for now.

Lapan said the Pentagon e-mailed military judges that the Tuesday ruling was to be followed immediately. One e-mail, made public by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was sent by Lt. Gen. Richard C. Harding, the Air Force judge advocate general. He ordered military lawyers "to inform your commanders of this injunction and its terms."

Aaron Tax, the network's legal director, said the Pentagon's move "keeps the injunction in place and it gives it effect, and that's good news for lesbian, gay and bisexual service members." For now, he said, "no one will be discharged."

But if the judge or the 9th Circuit temporarily sets aside the ruling, homosexual service members will "remain at risk," Tax said.
I have to say, I was actually getting a little optimistic about the Dems chances of avoiding a total blowout this Fall, but I don't see how this is going to help LGB voters turnout.
Lurking everywhere since 1998
Cecelia5578
Jedi Knight
Posts: 636
Joined: 2006-08-08 09:29pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Cecelia5578 »

Gil Hamilton wrote:I think its more dealing with the Pentagon than anything else. The compromise was going to be that DADT would be repealed, but the military would first have a shot at doing a comprehensive study first and put their stamp on the repeal as well, which was likely to happen. A judge giving a blanket injunction removes the military from the process at all, and with a change this sweeping in policy, the federal government is practically obliged to appeal it, even if they plan to do exactly the same thing. The White House does want DADT out the door, but they want to do it in such a way that they can claim military approval of the process.

What you are saying is prudent, but isn't that attitude...somewhat inimical to good civil-military relations? The executive branch and our civilian leadership are supposed to run the military, not high ranking generals and admirals. On the one hand I've always thought that repealing DADT will require careful study and thought, but giving too much deference to the military is not how our republic is supposed to function.
Lurking everywhere since 1998
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by SirNitram »

Pentagon to stop DADT enforcement
The Pentagon announced Thursday that it will comply with a court order to stop enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, even as the Obama administration asked a federal judge to delay implementation of the ruling.

Officials say they need time to institute new policies to ensure that the change won't affect combat readiness or morale. The administration has said it will appeal the ruling to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

In the meantime, "the Department of Defense will of course obey the law," Col. Dave Lapan, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail to reporters. The Pentagon will cease investigations and discharges of service members found to be in violation of the policy, officials said.

Despite the Pentagon's announcement, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, a group that supports ending the ban, has encouraged gay military members not to disclose their sexual orientation.

"It is clear there is confusion, and this interim period is dangerous for service members," Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in a statement. "Our service members need finality."

In September, District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled that the 17-year-old policy violates due process and the First Amendment rights of gay service members. Rather than being necessary for military readiness, she said, the policy has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed forces. On Tuesday, she ordered the military to comply immediately with her ruling.

The case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member gay advocacy group that includes current and former military members. The group argued during a two-week trial in July that the policy is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Lawyers for the group plan to respond to the government's application for a stay within 24 hours, a spokeswoman said.

The case is one of two related to "don't ask, don't tell" that have been deliberated this year in federal court. Last month, a judge in Washington state ordered the reinstatement of a decorated Air Force officer who was dismissed for revealing that she is a lesbian.

The administration's decision Thursday to ask for a stay of Phillips's court order was criticized by gay rights groups, which have been frustrated by government inaction on the policy. While running for president, Obama said he would repeal the law. But in September, Senate Democrats were unable to muster the 60 votes needed to begin debate.

"Today's appeal by President Obama's Department of Justice is not only indefensible - it is yet another shocking lack of leadership from the White House on issues of equality for the LGBT community," said Robin McGehee, director of GetEqual, an advocacy group.

Groups also criticized the administration for appealing a decision by a federal judge in Massachusetts that invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.

According to recent Washington Post polls, 75 percent of respondents said they think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and nearly half think they should be allowed to legally wed.

Obama has said that he opposes "don't ask, don't tell" but that he prefers that it be repealed by Congress.

"The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "The President believes and has repeatedly affirmed that 'don't ask, don't tell' is a bad policy that harms our national security and undermines our military effectiveness. . . . The President and his Administration are working with the military leadership and Congress to repeal this law."

At an MTV forum Thursday, when Obama was pressed by an audience member on why he hasn't ended the policy, the president said his hands are tied until the Senate acts.

"This is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can end the policy," he said. "I think people are born with a certain makeup and that we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love."

In another dust-up, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett apologized Thursday for referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" in a Washingtonpost.com video discussion.

"I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words," she wrote in an e-mail to columnist Jonathan Capehart. "Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans."
There. Now everyone has their 'stop while things go forward'. Of course, everyone is encouraged to continue abiding by it because, duh, it could fail, and then it's just made worse. Just the same as doing it by executive order, and far more legally justified.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Pint0 Xtreme
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2430
Joined: 2004-12-14 01:40am
Location: The City of Angels
Contact:

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Pint0 Xtreme »

SirNitram wrote:There. Now everyone has their 'stop while things go forward'. Of course, everyone is encouraged to continue abiding by it because, duh, it could fail, and then it's just made worse. Just the same as doing it by executive order, and far more legally justified.
This won't last long once the appeal courts issue an emergency stay.
Image
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by SirNitram »

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
SirNitram wrote:There. Now everyone has their 'stop while things go forward'. Of course, everyone is encouraged to continue abiding by it because, duh, it could fail, and then it's just made worse. Just the same as doing it by executive order, and far more legally justified.
This won't last long once the appeal courts issue an emergency stay.
If they do, you're correct. Obviously. But I think I'd at least update it.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: California judge orders injunction against DADT

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Cecelia5578 wrote:What you are saying is prudent, but isn't that attitude...somewhat inimical to good civil-military relations? The executive branch and our civilian leadership are supposed to run the military, not high ranking generals and admirals. On the one hand I've always thought that repealing DADT will require careful study and thought, but giving too much deference to the military is not how our republic is supposed to function.
I don't think its that simple. The civilian government is in charge of the military, and the civilian government was well on their way to getting that DADT repeal as it was, complete with the Pentagon's stamp of approval, and formally making it a law through Congress. That's a much stronger way to repeal it than a blanket ruling from a judge that sweeps away law, which as has been pointed out, the Justice Department is virtually OBLIGED to appeal even if they want they don't like that law. This could conceivably put gay servicefolk in limbo, because they don't dare out themselves even with the ruling, because it simply may not stick, while if this had been allowed to go through Congress, with a stamp from the military, the moment the law went through they can come out with the full support of the law and military establishment backing them.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
Post Reply