9th Circuit reinstates DADT

[memphis]

Darn San Francisco liberal court.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/20/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Gays-In-Military.html?_r=1&hp

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yep, the Obama Administration wants it back in.........so is this the CHANGE the Dems wanted?

[cinyc]

Those homophobic Democrats in the Obama administration are blocking the Log Cabin Republicans' efforts to overturn DADT.

This is obviously the correct decision.  One judge can't substitute her judgment for the entire military command from the President on down without further judicial review.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's your moderate heroism tax dollars at work.

[Torie]

It would be nice if  our Commander in Chief would condescend at some point, when he can fit it into his busy schedule of trying to motivate his enervated base, to explain just why he is dithering on delivering on his campaign promise to can DADT; waiting for what - Godot?  Meanwhile, the courts will continue to embarrass themselves by masturbating over this issue, regarding which they have no business being in, in the first place.

[Dgov]

A necessary step.  While I thoroughly loathe DADT, I don't think it should be repealed basically on the whim of a single judge in California.

This will be gone soon enough.

[Brittain33]

It would be nice if  our Commander in Chief would condescend at some point, when he can fit it into his busy schedule of trying to motivate his enervated base, to explain just why he is dithering on delivering on his campaign promise to can DADT; waiting for what - Godot?  Meanwhile, the courts will continue to embarrass themselves by masturbating over this issue, regarding which they have no business being in, in the first place.

I really don't care for Obama's behavior on this issue this past week, but he's been pretty clear that the military report on DADT due in early December is what he is waiting for, and absolutely no movement before then. He needs the military's buy-in to proceed and isn't willing to do otherwise. Since DADT was passed by Congress and needs to be either repealed by Congress or invalidated as unconstitutional, he doesn't have the legal power Clinton had with the gay ban to simply repeal it.

There were plenty of ways he could have achieved de facto repeal without de jure repeal, such as suspending enforcement by executive order, which would have opened the door to President Romney or Pawlenty reinstituting it in 2013 or 2017, but the horse would have been out the barn and I don't think there would have been any appetite for doing so. He could have achieved the same by not seeking a stay, but he's intent on "doing this right" as he sees it. It's certainly pissing off the people I know, but not to the extent that we wouldn't vote in this year's election.

I said yesterday on FB that the brief policy change felt like San Francisco gay marriages in Feb. '04 and so it has been.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It would be nice if  our Commander in Chief would condescend at some point, when he can fit it into his busy schedule of trying to motivate his enervated base, to explain just why he is dithering on delivering on his campaign promise to can DADT; waiting for what - Godot?  Meanwhile, the courts will continue to embarrass themselves by masturbating over this issue, regarding which they have no business being in, in the first place.

I really don't care for Obama's behavior on this issue this past week, but he's been pretty clear that the military report on DADT due in early December is what he is waiting for, and absolutely no movement before then. He needs the military's buy-in to proceed and isn't willing to do otherwise. Since DADT was passed by Congress and needs to be either repealed by Congress or invalidated as unconstitutional, he doesn't have the legal power Clinton had with the gay ban to simply repeal it.

There were plenty of ways he could have achieved de facto repeal without de jure repeal, such as suspending enforcement by executive order, which would have opened the door to President Romney or Pawlenty reinstituting it in 2013 or 2017, but the horse would have been out the barn and I don't think there would have been any appetite for doing so. He could have achieved the same by not seeking a stay, but he's intent on "doing this right" as he sees it. It's certainly pissing off the people I know, but not to the extent that we wouldn't vote in this year's election.

I said yesterday on FB that the brief policy change felt like San Francisco gay marriages in Feb. '04 and so it has been.

Your lack of anger on this surprise me.  Unless you're angry and are just calmly posting.

[tpfkaw]

Obama could end DADT by executive order.

Anyways, the 9th circuit isn't really liberal so much as statist - they will always choose the most statist option.  When there are two equally statist options, they'll choose the more liberal of the two.

[Brittain33]

Your lack of anger on this surprise me.  Unless you're angry and are just calmly posting.

For whatever reason, I don't get angry at Democratic Presidents who dither and compromise on gay rights issues. I think I burned out my anger over this at the Senate vote and over Obama back when he took Donnie McClurkin's side in the primaries and showed he wasn't going to be much of an advocate for gay rights. Maybe it's battered spouse syndrome?

[Brittain33]

Obama could end DADT by executive order.

No, he can't, at least not in a literal sense. DADT was passed by Congress and when it was created Congress made sure it could only be repealed by Congress. They didn't want a situation where the President could change the policy unilaterally as Clinton threatened to do in '93.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Your lack of anger on this surprise me.  Unless you're angry and are just calmly posting.

For whatever reason, I don't get angry at Democratic Presidents who dither and compromise on gay rights issues. I think I burned out my anger over this at the Senate vote and over Obama back when he took Donnie McClurkin's side in the primaries and showed he wasn't going to be much of an advocate for gay rights. Maybe it's battered spouse syndrome?

Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous......if you're red blooded, not a criminal,  and can shoot, you're in......the rest be damned.

[Brittain33]

Your lack of anger on this surprise me.  Unless you're angry and are just calmly posting.

For whatever reason, I don't get angry at Democratic Presidents who dither and compromise on gay rights issues. I think I burned out my anger over this at the Senate vote and over Obama back when he took Donnie McClurkin's side in the primaries and showed he wasn't going to be much of an advocate for gay rights. Maybe it's battered spouse syndrome?

Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous......if you're red blooded, not a criminal,  and can shoot, you're in......the rest be damned.

I think a lot of people in Washington haven't been able to accept that yours is the view of a large majority of Americans. It's not like gay marriage.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Your lack of anger on this surprise me.  Unless you're angry and are just calmly posting.

For whatever reason, I don't get angry at Democratic Presidents who dither and compromise on gay rights issues. I think I burned out my anger over this at the Senate vote and over Obama back when he took Donnie McClurkin's side in the primaries and showed he wasn't going to be much of an advocate for gay rights. Maybe it's battered spouse syndrome?

Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous......if you're red blooded, not a criminal,  and can shoot, you're in......the rest be damned.

I think a lot of people in Washington haven't been able to accept that yours is the view of a large majority of Americans. It's not like gay marriage.

No, it's not, and the flagged draped coffins don't say "Gay" on them, neither do the medals....

[??????????]

Most of the conservatives I know in r/l aren't even opposed to getting rid of this crap.

Won't the sodomy policy still exist though?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Most of the conservatives I know in r/l aren't even opposed to getting rid of this crap.

Won't the sodomy policy still exist though?

What sodomy policy?  Wouldn't any anti-sodomy law have been struck down in Lawrence v. Texas?

[??????????]

Does that apply to the UCMJ?

[Sam Spade]

The district court judge was clearly out-of-control here, so the 9th circuit is exactly right with staying the thing.