"The President has to fire someone because of their race. The constitution demands it!"

[Prism]

If that argument was put forward, what is the likelihood that vast numbers of Democrats would defend it?

What is the likelihood that it would be considered any kind of valid argument?

What is the likelihood that we would see Democrats going out of their way to get in racial minorities' faces to explain to them the President is doing the right and honorable thing in continuing to fire people based on race?

Ok.

So why is all right to behave this way with LGBT people? DADT is dead. Appeal is not a constitutional requirement. President Obama will now be the one actively seeking its reinstatement.

Why is this ok? Why are people arguing that the President is mandated to fire people based on their sexual orientation?

And, as the CIC, he is the one ultimately responsible for these firings. So yes, they are his responsibility.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[VMI Dem]

2. Why is the President appealing this right before the election?

Does he have a good reason?

:shrug:

[RockaFowler]

3. He said yesterday he wasn't

[VMI Dem]

6. He's not appealing the court ruling?

:toast:

[damonm]

17. HE is not. DoJ is,

and there are some explanations here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x478065
and here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39679402

[xchrom]

4. the first two responses are pretty frightening -- the first is dismissive in the extreme

and the second reverts to the primary seasons notions of racism with the lgbtiq folk -- like we're all affluent whites.

[Prism]

5. Oh, was I being called racist?

I didn't notice. It happens so often during LGBT topics, it just kind of gets drowned out in the general noise. Just yesterday, someone was explaining that Valerie Jarrett's disrespect wasn't all that bad because of LGBTers' racism and lack of respect for the black community. Yes, really. (as all LGBTers are white)

It's funny. I supported Obama from the very beginning in the primaries, spoke out against racism in the immediate aftermath of Prop 8, and insisted that religion is the primary motivation of homophobia - not race. But I still get slapped around with the racially homophobic "white gay" thing occasionally.

I roll with it, because it's so transparent, what else can you do?

[Nite Owl]

7. It isn't ok.

One of the reasons that Obama has lost ground with some of the electorate is that he doesn't take strong principled stances. He is always a mushy middle compromiser. Even if people don't agree they want to see a strong leader. He should be out there now saying that: all dismissals will stop immediately, this will still go to Congress for a vote but it will be symbolic, the policy of discrimination will end this minute.

[Unvanguard]

8. Actually, if there were a statute requiring as much, I'm not at all sure that you're right.

I, for one, would find it a valid argument--at least prior to the Supreme Court rulings of the 1950s and 1960s that raised the bar for racial discrimination so high as to make any such policy obviously unconstitutional and incapable of any reasonable legal defense.

No such legal development has occurred on gay rights issues. If it had, DADT would be dead already. Law is unlike justice in that tradition counts: very strict bars on racial discrimination are settled law in this country, and very strict bars on anti-gay discrimination are not.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Oh goody, the 1 millionth thread on this topic.

:eyes:

[VMI Dem]

10. ...

:cry:

[treestar]

12. And still repeating the same ignorance, no matter how much education

is attempted. Talk about not listening.

[donco6]

14. Still spouting your condescending bs, no matter how badly pwned. N/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Can't let facts get in the way of a good pout. You'd think that outrage overload..

would set in at some point. :shrug:

[donco6]

19. Not when the injustice keeps piling on.

But don't let that bother you. We know it won't anyway.

[treestar]

11. That is not the point

No one said that. This is legalistic mumbo jumbo, which people eager to think they are victimized take the wrong way.

The DOJ defends the laws, even if they are crap, but at least someone is appealing them. If the law is truly wrong, the next highest court will affirm.

The law has no rational basis, and the plaintiffs will argue that in each appeal. If you've no confidence in the law or the court's decision, you want to leave it a just one district. There are 94 Districts. You're not even willing to test that law in the 9th circuit. And there are 11 circuits. As if you're sure it's constitutional and the appeal is a huge threat.

Why do you think it's constitutional? Answer, you haven't even thought about that for one minute. If you were sure it weren't appeals would not matter.

[Unvanguard]

15. You are conflating two separate questions.

Is DADT constitutional? No.

Are higher federal courts likely to declare it constitutional? Quite possibly.

So, as far as a means of ensuring that DADT is gotten rid of, not appealing the loss is a far better measure than relying on the higher courts--especially because, even if LCR wins a final ruling, it will be a long time.

Remember, Judge Phillips issued a nationwide injunction. If the government doesn't appeal, DADT is over, everywhere.

[FrenchieCat]

13. The President has to fire up voters........

or else, ain't nobody getting shit! period.

The President is the last person I'm concerned about in having their ass handed to them,
if we don't understand what is truly at stake in this election.

[Politicub]

18. DADT is a civil rights issue. It makes a farce of the "Justice" Department to defend it

Sometimes you have to take a stand when something is plainly wrong and stop hiding behind your precious fig leaf. Abolishing DADT is all about social justice.

And, spare me the whole "they have no choice but to defend it." Sickening.