A federal judge in California issued a permanent ban Tuesday on the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays and lesbians in the military, ordering the Defense Department to immediately halt any efforts to remove personnel because of their sexual orientation.
The government has 60 days to appeal the ruling, which gives the administration until after the midterm election next month to make a decision. But it also presents a problem for President Obama as he tries to rally his Democratic base.
Don’t fuck this up, Obama.
I could see Obama putting off decision until after the Election…just because its a wedge issue
I’m pretty sure if he DOES fuck it up, a host of angry LGBT’s will be leaving a burning sack of dog shit on the White House doorstep—and I shall be with them. But…yay!! :D
Huzzah! The Sacred Band of Thebes will live again!
I have not the capacity to adequately understand the repercussions of any course of action.
Let’s hope they decide her decision is valid nationwide, and no one successfully appeals it. Full removal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rule is still far away, but this shows that we are making important steps towards it! I hope that on the next National Coming Out Day, our brave men and women of the armed forces will be able to participate without fear of being discharged for it.
Yayayayayaya! That’s all coming out of this girl.
Now the only thing to do is count the number of times FOX calls her an “activist judge”.Makes for a fun drinking game.
Nice that it happened right after National Coming-Out day, too. <3
Please note that you WANT Obama to appeal this. No seriously you do want him to appeal this as it is the bes thing for Gays. Please hear me out.Legislatively they COULD take care of DADT now, well after the election type now and get rid of it. The flipside is that if they let the Judiciary take care of it and it makes it to the Supreme Court it not only nullifies the law but it means there is less of a chance that Congress can re-enact it the next time the Repubs take power. Although them changing this law after that much time is unlikely after that much time outta power I wouldn’t hold them against trying. And yes I think it would be overturned by SCOTUS based on other precedent and SCOTUS is less likely have THEIR decisions on these issues overturned.So please as a democrat and a supporter of Obama and LGBT PLEASE APPEAL THIS.
No you can’t use that common of a phrase for a drinking game… you get drunk too quickly!
I don’t think we can safely assume the Supreme Court will uphold this decision.
You all do realize that killing DADT without killing the original ban in the UCMJ just brings us back to the witchhunts that existed before DADT right? Trust me, it was way worse before. But in order for repealing DADT to have any actual positive effect, the ban it was amended to has to be repealled first.
If the Justice Department doesn’t appeal this, then it won’t ever get to the Supreme Court. I’m pretty sure the federal government is the only entity with standing to appeal.If I were Obama I would take the occasion to excoriate Democrats in Congress for their inability to get much done despite having a majority in both houses. But then, if I were Obama I wouldn’t have protected torturers or authorized the government to kill American citizens without trial.
Except the president can remove the ban from the UCMJ without Congress passing a law, which is what Clinton should have done instead of fobbing it off on Congress.Also, if DADT is unconstitutional, then the stricter UCMJ ban would fail the same constitutional test, if someone can get it before a judge.
I’m not a lawyer but my understanding here is that the decision applies to the US military in the US and around the world.If the federal government acting through the Department of Justice does not appeal the decision, then it stands.None of the conservative and religious groups who are against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” have any legal standing to appeal the decision.The most that any conservative group can do is file an amicus curiae brief if the Department of Justice decides to appeal the decision. And if the Justice Department doesn’t appeal, the most they can due to sputter with incoherent rage.The only potential downside I can see here is the current UCMJ law that Mouse mentioned. While it’s not a ban on gays in the military, it’s a ban on oral and anal sodomy (Article 125 of the UCMJ).If 70-75% of the US public between the ages of 25 and 29 are engaging in male-female oral sex (based on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior), then it will be pretty hard for the US military to do a witchhunt based on the Article 125 alone for gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers.
The Dems may have a majority, but not a working majority — no party discipline when it really counts. I.e., they’ll support any candidate who looks like they can win and claims to be a Democrat.
That’s what I’m hoping for, myself. It’s just getting a little irksome, as a bi veteran with a whole family of military members, to see history getting distorted around what DADT was (the biggest baby step Clinton thought he could get away with at the time). I know plenty of gay vets who served both before and after DADT was passed and they all say the same thing; DADT was not ideal (far from it obviously) but it was an improvement.
I’m 15 years out of the military so my memory of this is a little fuzzy. But IIRC, there is actually legislation beyond the UCMJ covering this as well. SO the whole thing could get very tricky legally before it’s all sorted out.
This. Especially with Scalito running the show.I understand the power a decision like this could have, but the bench is so, so conservative right now. But, it’s only getting worse, and this may be the best chance we have for some time.
Only 70-75%? Seriously?
But the SCOTUS has to be very careful how they rule. Unlike the other 2 branches of government, The Judiciary (including SCOTUS) actually has to explain them. And thus far we’ve had plenty of precedent as to why it SHOULD be overturned.
Given the administrations history of utter failure to uphold Obama’s statement of support for gay rights- including active promotion of several policies against them- it should be pretty easy to note that this *will* be appealed… though it’ll wait until after midterms to take advantage of the appearence that he possibly might not.
Yeah, I saw a news story yesterday that said Clinton had pushed for DADT, but made no mention of the stricter policy that it replaced.Going all the way back to 1993 is delving into ancient history as far as the modern American press is concerned. Actually looking at events before then would be out of the question for them.
I’m sure the military would have no problem enforcing the sodomy ban selectively to only target gays.
In my experience that’s pretty much what they did. I only know of one case of the sodomy ban being enforced against a straight couple (from when I was a kid and my mom was active duty) but I think they were doing something else frowned on by the UCMJ and the sodomy was only an extra charge to throw at them (adultery or something).
I have to agree with users Mouse and Matthew Brown. DADT was a law enacted by Congress and as such should be repealed by Congress. If it just has an injunction, that just means they stop enforcing it, it does not mean that they can start up later. I know the judge said ‘permanent injunction’ but nothing in law is permanent except for a repeal. By appealing this injunction, and IF successful in the appeal, this keeps it a hot issue for progressive voters to turn out and provide the President with a cooperative Congress. Which actually means we only need 2 more Democratic senators, minimum. Bernie Sanders is an Independent but caucuses with the Democrats. We know Lieberman is useless. Its unpleasant, but its very close.If the appeal is unsuccessful, then the military has to abide by the judge’s ruling anyway. So either the DOJ can does half-assed appeal, which would make the President look hypocritical (I dont think he is in this case), or the appeal goes to the SCOTUS. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the ban, it is always and forever up to the Congress, OUR representatives as long as we VOTE, to repeal or enact any law.Final note, By Definition – all law enacted by the Congress ARE Constitutional. The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to strike down laws. They make opinions or injunctions on existing law but now law can be struck down. That is not one of the powers given to the judicial branch in any article of the Constitution.
correction. … It doesn’t mean they CANNOT start up again later… 3rd line…