Originally Posted By mawnck >>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.<< I think it means that they can't end DADT because it would prevent the military from ending DADT. But seriously, they may be thinking about (or, to look at it another way, using as an excuse) the need for written enforceable policy concerning how openly gay service people should best be integrated into the service, what the policy is for soldiers and officers who aren't nice to them, how they can nicely tell John McCain where to stick it without offending all the veterans, that kind of thing. Third theory, "can't this please wait until after the GD election?"
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm not quite understanding what Obama's strategy is with this. >>> It could quite possibly be that he believes that a sudden shift in a policy of this type is not in the best interest of the armed forces. And, being Commander In Chief and all, he might take those concerns seriously.
Originally Posted By hopemax And the appeals court granted the stay, and the ban is back in place. *sigh* <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69J3Y120101021" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20101021</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt From the article: >>The Obama administration insists it supports ending the ban but prefers a political rather than court-imposed remedy, and has urged the courts to give the military more time to make the transition on its own.<< I need to take some time and get to the bottom of this. Why not just let the court rule and be done with it?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 I think he's trying to make all sides happy again, and as usual, is failing miserably. He really needs to learn that there is no way he's ever going to please everyone, so he needs to pick a stance and be done with it. Stop telling me he wants the policy gone, and then have his Justice Department try and defend it. Enough of the two-sidedness. Just get rid of the damn thing already!!
Originally Posted By mawnck From HuffPo: >>The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them. This practice cuts across party lines. And it has caused serious heartburn for more than one attorney general. The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court. Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others."<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/dadt-conflict-explained-w_n_771035.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...035.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Thanks, mawnck. That's what I was wondering about, and that makes reasonable sense. Imagine the Bush administration not defending a certain law because they found it too liberal. We'd all be up in arms.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Except that the Obama administration has already set a precedent of choosing not to defend other cases against the government in areas that don't involve the gays.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Examples? Of laws passed by Congress that a court ruled against, and then the Obama admin didn't appeal? Not saying there aren't any, but I want to know we're comparing apples to apples here.
Originally Posted By ecdc Which raises another question. Are they obligated to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court? Is that part of the tradition? It would seem that once a court has ruled, the Obama administration could say they've done their job by defending the law in court but they lost. I'm not trying to defend the Obama admin on this one. I'm really just trying to understand why all the pundits seem to act like it's so obvious that they'll appeal. It almost sounded as if they are legally bound to do so, even though that's clearly not the case.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It could quite possibly be that he believes that a sudden shift in a policy of this type is not in the best interest of the armed forces. And, being Commander In Chief and all, he might take those concerns seriously." Bingo. If the things I hear from members of the military who have already done multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is any kind of barometer, the rank and file despise Obama. They hated Bush too, and held out hope Obama would get the military out of both countries. The guys I know say there is absolutely no strategy, tactic, surge, anything that we could that would bring positive change to Afghanistan. Getting out this afternoon wouldn't bring any less fallout than if we did some slow paced withdrawal. It will descend into chaos no matter what. However, Obama has been told something, whatever it is, by the military/CIA/NSA that makes him agree with their brass that we need to stay. This makes the rank and file despise him. With that backdrop, if it was possible to increase that disgust, that same brass tells him the rank and file would likely revolt if he himself repealed DADT. If a court does it, he's off the hook. If he does it, watch out. Remember, the bulk of the military is not comprised of incredibly diverse, socially aware individuals straight out of some utopian geographic area. Moreover, their lives often depend on profiling people, and that mind set carries over. So, his Administration defends it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ The only catch is that he only had a 2-year window to actually repeal DADT. It was pretty much evident back in 2008 that the economic cake was already baked and the 2010 mid-terms would be a blood bath for incumbents. There was never any hope of Obama having majorities in Congress beyond 2010. So, he's put himself in a position where he slow-rolled a civil rights issue to the point that it's not likely to get resolved for many more years to come. The recent court victories will languish in the court system for several more year. The gay and lesbian servicemembers who are being treated as invisible sub-human elements of military society get to suffer for probably another decade more because of the President's decision to play politics instead of doing the right thing.
