It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:50 PM


All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:52 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
How does the same Administration do both of these things simultaneously?

Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Justice Department requested an emergency stay Thursday of a federal judge's injunction stopping enforcement of the military's policy that bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly.

Justice Department lawyers say they want the federal court in California to grant a stay of the injunction, which would remain in effect throughout the appeals process.

The government says the stay would allow for an orderly transition to a policy allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. military.

Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization challenging the current law, said it wasn't surprised by the appeal and will promptly oppose the government's proposed stay.

"If this stay is granted, justice will be delayed, but it will not be denied," Log Cabin deputy executive director Christian Berle said in a statement. "Meanwhile, we urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to do what it takes in the lame duck session to end 'don't ask, don't tell' legislatively."

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Philips in California issued her injunction Tuesday.

Although President Barack Obama has stated his view that the current law is discriminatory, the administration also has said Congress, not the courts, should change the law allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the armed forces. The Justice Department says that it defends all laws of Congress in court.

"This is not a question of whether this policy will end. This policy will end, and on my watch," Obama said Thursday when asked about the issue at a town-hall-style meeting.

Meanwhile, senior military lawyers at the Department of Defense directed military lawyers to stop any proceedings related to "don't ask, don't tell," a Pentagon spokesman said.

The staff judge advocate generals from the military services -- the senior military lawyers -- sent an e-mail informing the military to abide by the injunction.

"The Department of Defense will of course obey the law," said Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan, "and the e-mail noted that, in the meantime, the Department will abide by the terms in the court's ruling, effective as of the time and date of the ruling,"


and

Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Pentagon has advised recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, given the recent federal court decision that bars the military from expelling openly gay service members, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to "manage expectations" of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the "don't ask, don't tell" policy could be reinstated, Smith said.

Federal Judge Virginia Phillips in California is expected to decide Tuesday whether she will stay her injunction against "don't ask, don't tell" at the request of the government, which is appealing her ruling.

Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.

One group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, sent a statement out Tuesday reiterating the concern.

"During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up," said SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis in the statement. "The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:28 PM 
For the old school!
For the old school!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:57 PM
Posts: 1147
From a legal perspective, it makes perfect sense to me. I do, however, agree with you on principle. It's just that he's insisting it be done "correctly" or some shit.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:57 AM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
I do NOT understand it either. Why can't they just decide not to appeal? "Oh we have to defend the law" seems like bullshit to me. I do not understand this, and it pisses me off.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:10 AM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Quote:
"Oh we have to defend the law" seems like bullshit to me.


It is. Ask Bill Clinton about his refusal to have the DoJ defend the law about kicking HIV+ service members out of the military.

Quote:
"Based on this advice from the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after consulting with the Department of Justice about the legal effect of that advice, the President concluded that the Dornan Amendment is unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminates and violates all notions of equal protection. Again, at the direction of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will decline to defend this provision in court. If the Congress chooses to defend this treatment of men and women in the military, it may do so. But this administration will not." - White House Counsel Jack Quinn, 1996, in transcript quoted in full below.


So yeah, Obama's insistence that it HAS to happen through congress is more than just a little bit of bullshit.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:24 AM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Posts: 4109
It will never get overturned through Congress. Dems will have less seats in both bodies of Congress in a few weeks, if not an outright minority.

Geeze, it's almost like the best course of action is just to issue a motherfucking executive order. Who'da thunk it, huh???

I also love that it's the Log Cabin Republicans on the right side, and the Dems on the wrong side. I'm not sure I could possibly hate my former party more than I do now.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:38 PM 
Shelf is CAMPED!!
Shelf is CAMPED!!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:24 PM
Posts: 1918
Location: Location
EQ1: Binkee
WoW: Wilkins
Rift: Wilkins
LoL: ScrubLeague
No one cares about you.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:05 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
The "we have to defend the law" probably is bullshit, but it's supposed to be a means to an end. That end is that we push legislation through legitimately with no room for question or error. Right now you're just going to have a bunch of people in the military thinking it was all done at the hands of an activist judge, rather than pushed forth by the people. It's like marching into 1820 Tennessee and unilaterally declaring that no one can hold slaves. Yea, that'll go over well. The plus side is that in this day and age if we push something through Congress legitimately there's a pretty good chance that both the people and the military will accept the decision.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:32 AM 
Blackburrow Lover!
Blackburrow Lover!

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:29 PM
Posts: 634
Location: Crestview, FL
EQ1: Arunhah
WoW: Scathain
Rift: Arunhah
EQ2: Scathian
A court finding legislation unconstitutional is legitimate and leaves just as little room for question or error as more legislation. Also if a judge finds a piece of legislation unconstitutional, that is less 'activist judge' and more 'judge doing their job as prescribed by the Constitution'.

Quote:
It's like marching into 1820 Tennessee and unilaterally declaring that no one can hold slaves. Yea, that'll go over well
It isn't anything like that at all. Our military members are far more disciplined and accustomed to direction that they may disagree with coming down the chain of command than a civilian populace. Hell, many of them probably already know someone who's gay and serves.

The only advantage to having Congess doing it over allowing the verdict to stand is that it allows the military time to adjust their housing, which to my mind is completely unnecessary. Any other advantage is strictly political, and doesn't warrant consideration.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 7:05 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
The thing that pisses me off the most about this, that literally makes my head want to explode, is the excuse that "they need to defend the law". That is such utter bullshit. Obama took this oath:

Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


He either needs to step up and say he does not believe equality in the military to be constitutionally protected (if indeed that is what he believes) or he needs to actually defend the constitution by stepping aside and letting the court ruling stand. If he is too weak-kneed to do either of those things then maybe he should have the DoJ request that the case be expedited (yeah I know that's not the correct word but I'm having a brain burp) to the SC.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:07 AM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
Although I find DADT morally questionable (at best) and agree that the administration's actions seem counter-productive, I have to take issue with this:
Kulamiena wrote:
The thing that pisses me off the most about this, that literally makes my head want to explode, is the excuse that "they need to defend the law". That is such utter bullshit. Obama took this oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He either needs to step up and say he does not believe equality in the military to be constitutionally protected (if indeed that is what he believes) or he needs to actually defend the constitution by stepping aside and letting the court ruling stand.
Defending the Constitution doesn't mean immediately turning around whenever a court makes a ruling. There's a process of appeals outlined in some document... oh yeah, the Constitution.

Devil's advocate: What happens in 2013 when Sarah Palin (or worse) is in the White House and wants changes the doctrine again. The stronger the legal argument against it, the more difficult it'll be. If Congress were to shoot it down (yeah, not about to happen weeks before an election, and certainly won't after this one) or if there are sufficient court rulings -- including a Supreme Court decision -- it'd be virtually impossible.

I don't like the short-term injustice of it, but this could be a very good thing for equality in the long-term.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:11 AM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Leolan wrote:
Defending the Constitution doesn't mean immediately turning around whenever a court makes a ruling. There's a process of appeals outlined in some document... oh yeah, the Constitution.

Devil's advocate: What happens in 2013 when Sarah Palin (or worse) is in the White House and wants changes the doctrine again. The stronger the legal argument against it, the more difficult it'll be. If Congress were to shoot it down (yeah, not about to happen weeks before an election, and certainly won't after this one) or if there are sufficient court rulings -- including a Supreme Court decision -- it'd be virtually impossible.

I don't like the short-term injustice of it, but this could be a very good thing for equality in the long-term.


I'm not sure why you believe that the Oath of Office only applies to the courts. If so, why make every elected official take one?

Either Obama believes that DADT passes the constitutional test or he doesn't. If he believes it does, then his actions make perfect sense within his oath. If he believes it doesn't then yeah, I expect him to uphold the constitution over pursuing political expediency. His 'defending the law' response and his call on Congress to overturn DADT are nothing less than politics and not wanting it used against him in 2012.

There isn't a chance in hell the new, less Democratic Congress is going to overturn DADT and I'm sure he knows that. Having his DoJ pursue an appeal was at best hypocritical and at worst base cowardice.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:23 PM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
Kulamiena wrote:
I'm not sure why you believe that the Oath of Office only applies to the courts. If so, why make every elected official take one?

Either Obama believes that DADT passes the constitutional test or he doesn't. If he believes it does, then his actions make perfect sense within his oath. If he believes it doesn't then yeah, I expect him to uphold the constitution over pursuing political expediency. His 'defending the law' response and his call on Congress to overturn DADT are nothing less than politics and not wanting it used against him in 2012.

There isn't a chance in hell the new, less Democratic Congress is going to overturn DADT and I'm sure he knows that. Having his DoJ pursue an appeal was at best hypocritical and at worst base cowardice.
I didn't say anything about oaths only applying to courts. I don't know where you got that.

What I did say about the oath is that it's much more complicated that simply, "do whatever you think the constitution says," even though, of course, that has to play some part.

To reiterate and hopefully clarify my previous point: The best thing that can happen to dismantle DADT is a decision by the Supreme Court, striking it down. What the president believes to be constitutional can change with an election. Changing or successfully challenging a Supreme Court ruling is more difficult by at least one order of magnitude, if not five (the number of justices required to agree on a decision).

If you believe that DADT is unjust, that's what you should hope will happen.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:20 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:35 PM
Posts: 3926
Quote:
A court finding legislation unconstitutional is legitimate and leaves just as little room for question or error as more legislation. Also if a judge finds a piece of legislation unconstitutional, that is less 'activist judge' and more 'judge doing their job as prescribed by the Constitution'.


It only leaves as little room for question or error strictly in terms of its legality and without an eye towards anything else. That's not necessarily the only question we should be asking. Public perception, even if occasionally flawed, is still very important in terms of making sure we pass something through without a lengthy battle of appeal after appeal after appeal and the perception that something unjust is going on. Regardless, it's still more rigorous to have it passed through Congress(and representative of the people, whom elected them) than it is to have a single judge decide that it's unconstitutional, even if it truly is unconstitutional(and the judge may be completely correct and within his/her purview in deciding to rule as such). It passes through more hands, is subject to more debate, and is arguably a more transparent and open process.

Quote:
It isn't anything like that at all. Our military members are far more disciplined and accustomed to direction that they may disagree with coming down the chain of command than a civilian populace. Hell, many of them probably already know someone who's gay and serves.

The only advantage to having Congess doing it over allowing the verdict to stand is that it allows the military time to adjust their housing, which to my mind is completely unnecessary. Any other advantage is strictly political, and doesn't warrant consideration.


I'll agree that the analogy is a stretch and that we can't really equate today's military personnel with 1820 slave-owning farmers, but I'm just pointing out that we're dealing with a system that has actively discouraged all forms of homosexual behaviour for decades upon decades. Conservative minds abound there, especially in the upper echelons of the military. If there's a way we can slightly slow down the process of introducing it without unduly delaying it too much, I'd be in favor. In my ideal world, we would introduce the legislation tomorrow. We'd have the debate on Monday-Thursday, then have a vote next Friday. Then over about a month-long period we'd get things ready, allow for time for it to sink in to those minds, and prepare the system for a bit of a surge in recruitment(and maybe improve the recruiting system in order increase advertisement that they now allow gays, and so forth). Past that point, everyone serves openly.

Bit of a pipe dream since government is all about delays and bureaucracy, but this process should have started decades ago. It can't be helped now that we're in 2010 and we still don't allow gays to serve openly, but I don't think that necessary means we should rush through it and ignore all potential perils and backlashes from a more forced approach, either.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:21 PM 
Trakanon is FFA!
Trakanon is FFA!

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:58 PM
Posts: 1464
Leolan wrote:
I didn't say anything about oaths only applying to courts. I don't know where you got that.

What I did say about the oath is that it's much more complicated that simply, "do whatever you think the constitution says," even though, of course, that has to play some part.

To reiterate and hopefully clarify my previous point: The best thing that can happen to dismantle DADT is a decision by the Supreme Court, striking it down. What the president believes to be constitutional can change with an election. Changing or successfully challenging a Supreme Court ruling is more difficult by at least one order of magnitude, if not five (the number of justices required to agree on a decision).

If you believe that DADT is unjust, that's what you should hope will happen.


I hope that the Supreme Court does strike down DADT. But, I also believe that the oath of office has meaning, or should, and that it requires the President to uphold and protect the coinstitution regardless of what the courts are doing and what congress does.

So, I stand by my statement that President Obama is either failing in his duty or needs to step up and state that he doesn't believe that DADT is unconstitutional.

And all of that is setting aside the fact that he allowed his Pentagon to actively recruit openly gay persons with one hand while attempting to bar their service with the other.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:07 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
'Don't ask' repeal moves toward law

Quote:
The Senate on Saturday cleared a crucial hurdle in repealing the controversial 17-year-old ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, all but ensuring the repeal will become law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/12 ... z18UJ9odQ1


I was reading about this on another site, talking about Sen. Scott Brown's support for passage of the bill and I could not believe how hateful some of those posters were.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:40 PM 
Froaaak!!!
Froaaak!!!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Posts: 1859
Location: San Antonio, TX
EQ1: Rugen Payne
WoW: Mathaen
Color me really surprised. DADT was quickly becoming "charlie brown and lucy with the football" for me...every time you think you are going to get to kick it....

Now if they can just pass the DREAM act, it will be a really good close for the year on what I personally felt like was a let down on promises being kept over the last 2 years.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:33 PM 
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
Trolling like there is no tomorrow!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Posts: 3609
Location: DFW
EQ1: Ghaani (retired)
WoW: Gabbath (retired)
Rift: Gabbath (retired)
SWOR: Gabbath/Gh'anni (retired)
I think the DREAM act was killed. If I was reading that one correctly, there were some things in it that I did not like


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:47 PM 
Train Right Side!
Train Right Side!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:08 PM
Posts: 955
Location: Boston
The DREAM Act "only" got 55 votes, not enough to invoke cloture and move to a vote. So it is dead.

I am very very glad that DADT was dealt with legislatively (as has been my position for the last couple of years). This is much much better long-term than a stop gap executive branch based action.

_________________
Hope is the new black.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:22 PM 
The Sleeper
The Sleeper
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:30 PM
Posts: 1674
Location: Miami, FL
EQ1: Leolan
Rift: Leolan
So why the hell couldn't congressional Democrats move at the same speed for the last two years?

It's like the two minute warning at the Super Bowl when the team that's behind starts to wake up.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DADT hypocrisy
PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:27 PM 
I schooled the old school.
I schooled the old school.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:39 PM
Posts: 5011
Great question...i wish the democrats of the last month had showed up for the last two years.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y