Originally Posted By Mr X in the army. Per his twitter... ***In the recruiting station. Apparently I'm too old for the Marines! Just filled out the Army application.*** Awesome sauce. <a href="http://twitter.com/ltdanchoi" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/ltdanchoi</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So is DADT officially dead?<< It looks like it just might be. The Pentagon told its military recruiting stations to accept enrollments from openly gay and lesbian Americans. But I haven't had a chance to read much more. So why am I typing on a message board....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy DADT is dead until the Obama administration appeals to a higher court -- which is 99% likely. There is no non-discrimination policy in place for the Department of Defense. Openly gay and lesbian servicemembers face significant challenges to their long-term career goals if there is no non-discrimination policy put into effect. The Pentagon ordered recruiting stations to accept enrollements from openly gay and lesbian Americans to avoid further litigation. It remains to be seen how they actually treat those Americans or what other reasons they will come up with to deny those future enlistments.
Originally Posted By ecdc So help a dummy like me out. Why does the Obama Justice Department keep appealing the decision? All I've found is that it's a tradition to fight for laws passed by Congress. But is there a binding legal reason to do so? The political reasons seem foolish; Obama won't please conservatives by doing this (or curing cancer, or anything else) and he'll alienate his own base. Like I say, help me out....
Originally Posted By Mr X I would say that it *is* an idiotic and futile attempt to somehow placate the right wing. First the gay thing (despite all the promises), now MJ...how are these things so high up on the Justice Department's priority list when things like election fraud and wall street malfeasance get completely overlooked? I used to say that the GOP and the Democrats were one in the same, then I changed my mind for a time, now I'm starting to return to my original opinion.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy President Obama is a coward and afraid to confront the right wing military-industrial complex. He has allowed the bigots in the Department of Defense to call all of the shots with respect to DADT. That is why the appeals continue. Much like the way he bargained away substantive health care reform to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies right from the start of the process, President Obama pretty much gave Secretary Gates and the Generals a deal last year that they would dictate the DADT terms and timeline for repeal. The President has no guts to actually do the right thing.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Okay someone help me out here. I dont understand the DADT overturn issue too well and although I heard Obama explain why he's fighting it I'm still confused as well. What difference does it make if the court overturns it vs Congress? Will that have some kind of different effect I'm not aware of? I get maybe the symbolism is stronger if Congress repeals it, but doesnt the end justify the means at the end of the day? And then what I dont get is Obama is basically just HOPING Congress will repeal it, right? There is no guarantee it will happen. Add to that apparantly more Republicans will win seats (and some of those wacky tea party people) after the next election and I'm guessing most of them want DADT in place, then wouldnt it make it harder to repeal it in Congress even more? And so why take the chance to lock up all your options if you fight to overturn the court ruling but THEN lose out in Congress anyway? I mean why put yourself in a corner if you already have a branch of government who is already willing to do all the heavy work for you? Is there some legal loophole I'm missing here?
Originally Posted By WorldDisney LOL, ecdc basically asked the same question, I shouldve read the thread more fully first. But does anyone at least agree he could be setting himself up for dissappointment if he DOES win the appeal but then could loose the vote in Congress? I mean he seems adament he's going to win it in Congress but with the changing tides there soon, it may be even harder than he thinks and they obviously arent voting in 2 weeks. I just dont get it?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What difference does it make if the court overturns it vs Congress?*** The difference is simply that in a court situation the Supreme Court could strike down the ruling, AND any future Supreme Courts could probably have a chance to kill it down the road as well if another case comes up (assuming they're even more right wing than now, which is hard (and scary) to imagine!). If the Congress kills it it's not law anymore, so the Supreme Court can't get their vampire mitts on the issue at all. However, of course, a future Congress could naturally make a NEW law doing the same thing, or worse. So it's not as though it's dead either way...the Congressional way just makes it more "official" rather than it getting thrown out simply because the Congress screwed up and did something unconstitutional in the first place.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Okay, thanks! But it still sounds like he can loose the Congressional vote anyway or they can stall for years on it, so it seems like its better to let the legal ruling just play out IMO. And still a littl more confused is what IF people come out who are already in the military but the ruling is overturned? Would they be kicked out once they come out? I'm guessing most wont be coming out now though, but legally I wonder what would happen? From a legal/legislative viewpoint, it really is interesting .
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Letting the legal ruling play out could take several more years, and there is a very high chance that the Ninth Circuit and/or Supreme Court will not issue the same opinion as Judge Phillips. So, if there is no legislative repeal, I expect DADT will continue to be defense policy for another decade or more.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Kindest interpretation of Obama: he's thinking there are only two more months till the DOD issues its report, and they'd rather be the ones who recommend ending DADT rather than being told what to do by a judge. He still has to work with this DOD on Iraq and Afghanistan and in general, so he's placating them, rather than the right wing in general (who he ought to know by now can't be placated.) The problem with that (if it's true) is that Gates, much more than Mullen, seems ambivalent about overturning it, and may recommend some long drawn out process that could be derailed by a more conservative congress at any time. Or maybe I'm misreading Gates and he just wants some "process" in place rather than being told "end it now, period." But I think it's he that Obama is placating.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And still a littl more confused is what IF people come out who are already in the military but the ruling is overturned? Would they be kicked out once they come out?<< I understand that the military brass has already pointed this out, and recommended that anyone not asking and not telling should continue to do same. A third possibility about Obama's motivation ... being a Constitutional professor and all, perhaps he would take on the court ruling on a balance of power basis. Naaaahhh, everybody knows Obama is trying to destroy the Constitution. He probably even thinks there's something about separating church and state in the first amendment.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I understand that the military brass has already pointed this out, and recommended that anyone not asking and not telling should continue to do same*** I would say that any military brass saying so is committing a crime by saying so. They have NO right to intimidate their charges in such a way (HEY! Stay in the closet anyway!), as the legality of such a policy has been STRUCK DOWN.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***He probably even thinks there's something about separating church and state in the first amendment*** Except there isn't.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>They have NO right to intimidate their charges in such a way (HEY! Stay in the closet anyway!), as the legality of such a policy has been STRUCK DOWN.<< Legal schmegal. If it gets reinstated in any way, by anybody, then they have "told." End of story. And career. Nothing intimidating about it. It's friendly advice. It's also the reality of the situation. Until this thing is settled once and for all, it's just a wise career move to continue to keep your mouth shut.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 X, it's worth noting that, despite what Choi did, the (Gay and Lesbian) Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has also recommended that for the time being, gay and lesbian service members "don't tell." For exactly the reason mawnck said - if the process goes backwards at any point they could be screwed.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The Obama administration has requested a stay of 'don't ask, don't tell' order citing the injunction "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute". Whatever that means exactly. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/...ogle_cnn</a> I'm not quite understanding what Obama's strategy is with this.
