E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Justice Department has asked a federal court to put a hold on the judge's order this week that declared the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional.
"The Government intends to appeal the Court's decision. During the pendency of that appeal, the military should not be required to suddenly and immediately restructure a major personnel policy that has been in place for years, particularly during a time when the Nation is involved in combat operations overseas," said Clifford Stanley, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness in documents filed this afternoon in a California federal court. The magnitude of repealing the DADT law and policy is demonstrated by the Department's ongoing efforts to study the implications of repealing DADT."
What's more, Stanley says, "an injunction before the appeal in this case has run its course will place gay and lesbian servicemembers in a position of grave uncertainty. If the Court's decision were later reversed, the military would be faced with the question of whether to discharge any servicemembers who have revealed their sexual orientation in reliance on this Court's decision and injunction. Such an injunction therefore should not be entered before appellate review has been completed."
Leave a Comment:
To liberals this looks bad because Obama said he wanted to repeal DADT, nevermind the time frame. Social conservatives already hate him, and should know that he is in favor of repeal.
Who in the hell is this supposed to please? Military hawks?
Also, does anyone believe that the the repeal of DADT would go smoothly? Rip off the band-aid already.
Anon monster, this looks bad to the 70% of fair minded people who believe that gays have the right to serve openly.
Obama gives lip service to the gay and lesbian community, but does nothing for them. At every opportunity, he shows that he, himself, is a social conservative.
You can explain or spin it as you will, but, keep in mind, in the early days of his administration, his justice department filed a brief in favor of the defense of marriage act.
He had no obligation to do so. That, in itself, was the first, most revealing act of his administration.
I, like many, am a fiscal conservative, and a social, well, practically libertarian. Obama is a fiscal profligate and a social conservative.
I do not believe that there is a worse combination.
Thank you, Joe, for taking the words right out of my mouth.
Yes, 70% of Americans believe DADT is wrong. Why then have republicans fought so hard to prevent its repeal? The GOP claims to be fiscally conservative but have been anything but since 1981, but my, they are socially conservative.
No Joe. You win the prize for finding the most ways to describe President Obama in a negative way. Interesting, they are never the same from month to month. You have described him as just about everything possible and none of the descriptions are remotely accurate.
I agree Jody that the use of the word, profligate, is unjustified.
With 2 more years to go, Joe will soon deplete his arsenal of adjectives to KEEP FEAR ALIVE!
Adidas, do you even know what profligate means?
Go look it up.
Then look at the spending. Look particularly closely at the amount of spending for shovel ready jobs that Obama now admits DO NOT EXIST.
Then tell me it was inapt.
Given his response to questions about the proposed injunction, I'm more inclined to believe that this was an olive branch to Republicans/social conservatives.
Actions do speak louder than words though, so it's possible you're correct, NJNB. As pointed out by ED a couple of days ago, I probably have more faith in people than I should. =)
njnb:
I agree. But don't the Republicans who are blocking the repeal of DADT look equally bad?
But I'm not giving Obama a pass on this one because of Republican obstructionism. He has the power to get around it with an executive order or by just not appealing the judge's ruling. I suspect the reason he's won't do either is because he's worried that there would be mass resignations among the officer corps, especially in the Marines.
Houston, I believe the reason is that he is still under the mistaken belief that he can appeal to some moderate repubs. I don't know what has to happen to convince him otherwise, but I hope he sees the light soon.
NJNB, although I tend to disagree with most of your posts, I believe you hit the mark on this one.
The danger in the judge's decision is that gays/lesbians currently serving in the military may think this decision resolves the DADT law, and end up coming out when this is not settled law simply because a Federal judge declares something unconstitutional based on one case. It is certain to end up in the Supreme Court unless the Senate takes action. This needs to be resolved by Congress through repeal of DADT as the President has requested. Will liberals be disappointed, of course.
I failed to mention that I am against DADT and I want it repealed. I support the Federal judge's ruling because it is unconstitutional. But I do not want our military personnel to mistake it as settled law.
This is the right decision period. Can't have some Judge stop the way the Military runs things because of their personal views.
test
I'm baaack!
I also support Repeal of DADT but in the spirit of compromise, you know a quality that many Americans think is bad to have, there should be separate barracks and no submarine duty.
There should be many exceptions of course. If a unit decides it doesnt want a gay member to be segregated then he/she should be able to bunk with them.
Despite gay men/women being some of the coolest, outgoing individuals I've had the honor of knowing, millions of straight men currently serving are homophobic and this "compromise" as I have described may be the best way forward in my opinion.
It is the responsibility of the Attorney General's office to defend the United States in any litigation.
Whether they like it or not.
They essentially have to file the appeal or they are in breach of their ethical duty. Because DADT is the law, they ethically have to give it a vigorous defense--even if they personally oppose it--until it is repealed by Congress.
Don't read too much into this move by the Justice Department. It's what they're required to do while they are buying time for the Military to finish their "review".
It also doesn't inflame the folks in Congress ahead of the repeal fight that will have to come once that "review" is done.
BTW, the word is that the folks in the Pentagon are drafting their report of what to do WHEN (not IF) the recommend DADT be repealed.
This is the most disappointing thing that Obama has done by far. He's set up a Catch-22 situation, except it prevents people from staying in the military rather than preventing them from getting out as in the original Catch-22. He says Congress should repeal DADT, but he knows very well that repeal can never get through the Senate as it is now constituted, and it certainly will not get through the Senate in the next Congress. It won't even make it through the houste. The only way DADT can be through executive order or by simply letting the court case drop. Rachel Maddow was right: if Obama waits for Congress to do something, DADT will be on the books for many years.
You are right on, Houston. This is one thing that the president could do to show his quality and answer his detractors on the left. Britain ended their version of it years ago -- overnight -- no problems at all -- why are our marines, not to mention the other services, so tender and frail in their sensibilities that this would throw them for a loop? It speaks of disrespect for the troops to think they can't handle this. Argh.
President can repeal this by executive order and save the American people millions of dollars. I am in support of him doing so. It would end any ambiguity between the judicial and executive branches of the government and the military. Legislatures have shown no good faith regarding this issue. Lets get rid of it. That action would be good for America.
The news that MSNBC dose not print: Obama in the biggest OOPS in American history admits there are no such thing as Shovel Ready jobs and he perhaps should have listened to the GOP and lowered spending! He just in one sentenced sold out all his fellow democrats,cast out to sea as he stands on the island waving good bye! Now no Demo can defend the Stimulus bill! Full VIDEO and story http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/transcript/second-thought
Allocating funds to shovel ready projects is not the issue. The stimulus is ON TRACK to do what is was meant to do. Stave off an economic depression.
The issue is that Shovel Ready Projects still take time, due to red tape, to get off the ground.
Wade:
As usual, you are sadly mistaken. I'll defend the stimulus bill. I know you won't bother to read any links that prove it worked, but here's one anyway:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/obama-s-economic-stimulus-program-created-up-to-3-3-million-jobs-cbo-says.html
Read it yourself. And stop with the Fox News fact free talking points.
Obama had better know what's behind door number 2, because he just bet the farm. He had better know for sure that the military commission is going to issue an unequivocal report ending DADT and with a very short time line. If there is any opening for the Congress to conduct hearings and investigate, then the opportunity may be lost. And with it any argument that he is a progressive.
The arguments that he is a progressive have already become distant memories. He has more interest in courting Republican "bipartisanship" than his progressive base.
He's NOT a socialist, a marxist, or for that matter, a liberal/progressive. He's a centrist, and not a very good one at that.