Jump to content

DADT Halted


Entendu

Recommended Posts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575548393832434092.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

 

WASHINGTON—A federal judge in California issued a broad injunction barring the military from enforcing its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is aimed at prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

 

A federal judge in California this afternoon issued a broad injunction barring the military from enforcing its "don't ask don't tell" policy, aimed at prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military. Ashby Jones explains.

 

The Obama administration supports pending legislation to repeal the 1993 law, which requires service members to be discharged if they are openly gay. Republicans last month blocked an effort to bring the measure for a Senate vote, and Congress is now in recess until after the midterm elections.

 

The order Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., applies across the nation and would halt continuing military investigations and proceedings to discharge service members suspected of violating the don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

 

Ruling in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that supports gay rights, Judge Phillips last month declared that the law violated the constitutional rights of service members.

 

The Justice Department said it is studying the ruling. An appeal is likely, under the department's policy to defend legislation passed by Congress.

 

Alexander Nicholson, who is executive director of Servicemembers United and a plaintiff in the case, said: "While this is certainly news to be celebrated, we would also advise caution in advance of a potential stay from the Ninth Circuit. If the appellate court wishes to put itself on the right side of history, however, it will allow this sound and long-overdue decision to remain in effect."

 

Since 1993, the military has discharged more than 13,000 people under the Clinton-era policy, which bans the military from asking about service members' sexual orientation but requires the discharge of those who admit to being homosexual.

 

The military has already taken steps to defang don't ask, don't tell. Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued an order in March that limited the use of third-party accusations when investigating homosexuality among troops, effectively making it more difficult to expel service members who don't declare themselves to be gay.

 

The Pentagon is now conducting an internal review aimed at eventually repealing the policy. Mr. Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, support the repeal measure pending in Congress.

 

Write to Evan Perez at [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This was temporarily reinstated the other day pending government appeal.

 

I really disagree with Obama's stance that Congress HAS to be the one to repeal this. It's unnecessary and unlikely to happen with the GOP almost certainly retaking the House.

 

 

As opposed to the Supreme Court? I don't like that idea at all.

1st, they have to wait for a case involving this case to come before it. Who knows how long that would take.

2nd, they would have to go so far as to rule that it's unconstitutional; that's a much more significant burden than just having to get a majority vote to repeal it, since they don't have to jump any constitutional hurdles there.

Sure, it would likely be difficult with a Republican majority in the House/Congress, but that would also be easily the more "legitimate" way to go. And it may not be (found) unconstitutional, so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was temporarily reinstated the other day pending government appeal.

 

I really disagree with Obama's stance that Congress HAS to be the one to repeal this. It's unnecessary and unlikely to happen with the GOP almost certainly retaking the House.

 

 

 

Americans oppose DADT by a 2:1 margin. That's why it's going to Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case wouldn't have to go to the Supreme Court if the government opted not to appeal.

 

 

Link? I can't imagine that a temporary injunction granted by a California court can repeal something passed by Congress without anything other than the government "not appealing"...

This is a federal case. You're thinking of the Prop 8 ruling.

 

The case that caused this injunction was brought by soldiers fired under DADT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was temporarily reinstated the other day pending government appeal.

 

I really disagree with Obama's stance that Congress HAS to be the one to repeal this. It's unnecessary and unlikely to happen with the GOP almost certainly retaking the House.

 

 

 

Americans oppose DADT by a 2:1 margin. That's why it's going to Congress.

That's great and all, but if it's not going to pass, there's no point. Obama could just tell the Justice Department/Pentagon to not appeal the original ruling that overturned DADT, and that's enough. If the public supports it as we believe, then it wouldn't be a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was temporarily reinstated the other day pending government appeal.

 

I really disagree with Obama's stance that Congress HAS to be the one to repeal this. It's unnecessary and unlikely to happen with the GOP almost certainly retaking the House.

 

 

 

Americans oppose DADT by a 2:1 margin. That's why it's going to Congress.

That's great and all, but if it's not going to pass, there's no point. Obama could just tell the Justice Department/Pentagon to not appeal the original ruling that overturned DADT, and that's enough. If the public supports it as we believe, then it wouldn't be a big deal.

 

 

Sure there's a point. Obama and the rest of the Democrats get to campaign on the fact that the Republicans blocked legislation that Americans favor by a heavy margin. That would be a first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was temporarily reinstated the other day pending government appeal.

 

I really disagree with Obama's stance that Congress HAS to be the one to repeal this. It's unnecessary and unlikely to happen with the GOP almost certainly retaking the House.

 

 

 

Americans oppose DADT by a 2:1 margin. That's why it's going to Congress.

That's great and all, but if it's not going to pass, there's no point. Obama could just tell the Justice Department/Pentagon to not appeal the original ruling that overturned DADT, and that's enough. If the public supports it as we believe, then it wouldn't be a big deal.

 

 

Sure there's a point. Obama and the rest of the Democrats get to campaign on the fact that the Republicans blocked legislation that Americans favor by a heavy margin. That would be a first.

I haven't heard them doing that at all, so they're blowing their opportunity.

 

The problem is that this is the kind of issue that average people may not connect with all that well. While the public does favor a repeal of DADT, you aren't going to see protests over it, that's for sure.

 

Plus, it's obvious that this election is about the economy, and because that's in the toilet, other issues are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...