Obama Lawyers Seek To Re-Impose 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[ruggerson]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama Administration asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its order that put an immediate end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians serving in the military.

Lawyers for the Justice Department today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reverse its July 6 decision granting a request by the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that promotes equal rights for gays and lesbians, to block further enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" while it reviews a lower-court ruling declaring the law unconstitutional.

The appeals court issued its order "based in part on an apparent understanding that the government is not defending the constitutionality" of the policy, Henry C. Whitaker, a Justice Department lawyer, wrote in a letter to the court today. "That understanding is incorrect."

President Barack Obama on Dec. 22 signed into law legislation lifting the 1993 policy. The White House said then that it would take months for new rules to be put in place. On July 6, Marine Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an e-mail that certification of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- required for the law to take effect -- was just "weeks away."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/14/bloomberg1376-LOCM126KLVRY01-7RVOI92P1EOFR5IDBQ727KHJAS.DTL

[EFerrari]

1. I have to stop reading LBN.

:(

[roguevalley]

15. you and me both. there is no end to the fuckitude of this administration.

[gateley]

2. Is this saying the Administration wants to make sure it does

it correctly? Otherwise I just don't get it.

[ruggerson]

6. It's not a wise, farsighted move

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.

[gateley]

16. Very discouraging, but thanks - I appreciate the explanation. nt

[Tx4obama]

7. Here's a link to a CNN article

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/dadt.reconsideration/

[gateley]

17. Thanks! nt

[Sapphocrat]

20. There's nothing to get.

What is there to do "correctly" other than implement integration?

They've already surveyed every-damn-body, save for the veterinarians of three-legged dogs owned by step-nephews of wives of guys who once watched a veterans' parade down the main street of Adams, Tennessee in 1977 -- and everybody said, "Yeah, it's OK with me if the 'mos die alongside us."

Seriously, they've even given anti-gay bigot chaplains the option to bug out.

Really, there's nothing to "get." We -- and I mean the fighting forces of United States, and we whom they protect -- just got fucked again. And not in a good way.

What else is there to do "correctly"? :shrug:

Soldiers follow orders, whether they want to or not. Anyone who makes it seem more difficult than that is full of shit.

[Bryn]

3. I don't understand?

Bring back DADT policy? What am I reading? :(

[Merlot]

4. Misleading Headline. Read the article.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

8. Here's a CNN article that doesn't have a misleading title - link below

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/dadt.reconsideration/

[ruggerson]

10. Don't you want DADT dead in the most permanent way possible?

A court ruling which unequivocally states that DADT is unconstitutional COUPLED with congressional repeal is far stronger than just the repeal alone.

Remember there is no anti discrimination language in the statutory repeal because it was stripped out by the administration. The law needs to be killed as permanently as legally possible.

[EFerrari]

18. The Chronicle article wasn't watered down enough for DU. n/t

[ruggerson]

19. It's amazing to me that anyone would even try to twist themselves into pretzels

defending this.

[patrice]

9. That's a very poorly written confusing article with a misleading title. nt

[Tx4obama]

11. Try the CNN article on the link in comment #9. n/t

[patrice]

12. I did. It really is much better.

[Sapphocrat]

21. So did I.

And it still smells like a steaming pile of backpedaling shit.

Just my opinion, of course. Your sense of smell may vary.

[boppers]

13. Yeah CNN seems to get this is about policy and procedure.

DADT is secondary to this filing, as is Obama.

[EFerrari]

22. The CNN article didn't produce any compelling reason for Obama

to seek to re-impose DADT. The Chronicle article was fine and the headline was apt. There is no reason for the administration to spin this out.

[patrice]

23. Apparently there are attornies who think otherwise about problems induced by lower court

rulings regarding constitutionality. Are you an expert on those factors?

[William769]

14. K&R.

Fuck the bots!

[alp227]

24. fire those lawyers n/t

[Ian David]

25. Soldiers have not yet been trained not to be afraid to shower with their gay service members. n/t