Obama administration expected to appeal ruling on gays in military (as soon as tomorrow)

[no limit]

Source: CNN International

The Obama administration is expected to appeal as soon as Wednesday a federal judge's ruling that halted the Defense Department from enforcing its policy that bars openly gay people from military service, according to senior administration officials familiar with the government's plans.

...

While the government has up to 60 days to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco, California, officials familiar with the case said that could happen in the next day or two.

A Justice Department spokesman declined comment.

...

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred all questions on a possible appeal back to the Justice Department, but said President Barack Obama "strongly believes it's time for this policy to end."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/military.gays.appeal/

---

That's nice, Gibbs would like all questions about an appeal to go to the justice department. In turn the justice department won't comment.

There is nothing in the law that obligates this administration to appeal the ruling. The office of legal council does not get in the way neither does any kind of law. So this administration is doing this by choice, nothing more. And looks like they don't even feel like waiting a bit to see what their options are but instead will appeal it as soon as tomorrow.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Color me surprised.

Not.

[AllTooEasy]

65. Why?!!! That's his job

The Justice Department has to defend ALL US laws against judicial opposition to it's fullest capabilities.

Repuke Presidents have to defend civil rights laws, Liberal Presidents have to protect anti-gay laws.

...whether they put up a good defense is another story.

[boppers]

86. They put up a brilliant defense during the trial....

...they basically said "well, it's the law", and left it at that.

[msanthrope]

96. Indeed--the gov't called no witnesses, submitted no expert reports, merely

had the legislative history entered into the court record.

Minimal lawyering.

[boppers]

101. Sometimes, the way to win is to do your job.

And *NOTHING* more.

[meegbear]

2. gee, what a ... surprise

[madrchsod]

3. looks like a delay until after the elections..

but i`m not sure if he wants this to go to the supremes.

[txlibdem]

4. Do nothing about corporate campaign spending but come out swinging about the gays

I'm so sick of being right about our President being a center-right Republican, he's only pretending to be a Democrat. This latest, if true, only convinces me more.

Question: if you're not gay then wouldn't having more gay men just free up additional single ladies for you? So why does it scare so many supposedly straight men to death?!?

I love gays. More ladies for me! (well, I'm married and would never cheat but forever doesn't mean the same thing these days so a wise man keeps his options open).

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. What should the executive branch do about corporate campaign spending?

And how do you know what they're doing about it? Just curious....

[no limit]

11. Better Question: What has the administration done about corporate campaign spending?

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. You should ask the person who made the claim. I'm as curious as you.

He made the claim, so let's see the proof. I think that's fair, don't you? :shrug: Because anyone can say anything on the internet, if left unchallenged, it's a common tactic among the administration's rightwing critics (and a few on the left).

:edited for missing word:

[no limit]

18. So let me just make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying the admin has done nothing

to change corporate influance in our elections.

Incidentally I think the person you were responding to was making that point (I dunno, I'm no mind reader).

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. I concede no such thing. I was asking the poster to prove his claim

that the administration has done nothing. Wouldn't you like to know how the poster knows that? And the question remains, what does the executive do when the highest court (USSC) has made the ultimate and final ruling on the question of campaign finance?

The only way around the highest court's ruling is new legislation. Isn't Congress the legislative body? :shrug:

[no limit]

26. So you are sure Obama has done something, you just have no clue what it is.

Thanks for that very good explaination.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. I don't claim to know what they've done. The poster in question implied that he does.

I asked for proof of that proclamation. No proof has been presented by you or the poster you're obviously representing. But nice try. ;-)

[no limit]

36. I'm not representing anyone. I was simply asking you a question, a question you cant answer

yet you seem really upset when someone says "this administration isn't doing anything about corporations in our elections". I don't get why you are upset when you have no evidance to the contrary. That's the only point I'm making.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Far from upset. You guys are making frantically wild & unsubstantiated claims.

I simply asked for proof of that poster's claim that the administration has done nothing about campaign finance. You're asking me to disprove a negative? WTF? What you're saying in essence, is because you agree with the poster's unsubstantiated claim, that you guys are allowed to make up shit, and never have to prove it. I find that abhorrent, but not surprising.

[no limit]

39. No, I'm not asking you to disprove a negative. That would be absurd

I am asking for examples, any examples, of where the administration did anything to remove corporate influance over our elections.

You keep repeating the phrase "you guys" and the fact that I am making up wild and unsubstantiated claims. It's not "you guys", it's just me you're talking to. And I have not made any claims, I simply asked you a question. You called what he said wild and unsubstantiated but you don't have any examples as to why. I'm guessing you pay attention since you are here. I do too. I can't name any examples where the obama admin has tried to clean up our elections. Turns out neither do you. What conclusion do you draw from that? That the administration is super secretive about all these good policies they should be fighting for?

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Should the executive really be the branch that "cleans up elections"?

You've jumped right over the other two branches of government, especially the one that makes laws. The president has voiced his disapproval of the Citizens United ruling, publicly, on many occasions. Other than making his disapproval known to us and the Congress, what is he supposed to do about it? I may be mistaken, but is there an appeal process for a USSC ruling? Is there a higher court in the land that I don't know about? :shrug:

Sounds like you wanted a monarch, rather than an elected official. And you can keep kicking this crap thread if you like, but until the poster I originally responded to can provide proof of his assertions, I'm out. But you gave it your best shot. :eyes:

[no limit]

56. Yup, it's super secret 6 dimensional chess. Have a nice day

If you think the president of the united states whos party controls both chambers of congress has absolutely no influance over policy I have a bridge to sell you. I'll give you a hell of a deal. Do you have paypal?

[txlibdem]

94. Cannot prove a negative

ipso facto

[meowomon]

28. The administrations own actions and words lead us to believe he will do this.

Obama has thrown us under the bus before. This would be the last straw for me, though. I still have my Obama/Biden sticker on my car, but if they appeal, they are coming off tomorrow.

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. You do know that you don't represent all gays, right? You're entitled to...

your opinion. However, you can only speak for YOU. ;-)

[meowomon]

83. That's a big fat "duh".

I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

[displacedvermoter]

93. So what is this "you guys" then, if you are answering one person?

Are "you guys" anyone who disagrees with the Obama Administration?

[meowomon]

99. Oh please.

The gay people I know and talk to, I should have said. Is that specific enough for you?

[displacedvermoter]

105. Again, it sounds like anyone who disagrees with anyting Obama

does are "you guys".

Oh friggin please.....

[beforeyoureyes]

46. Same way women's bodies were held as barter in the health insurance wet dream reform

He doesn't like it, but he won't risk ANYTHING politically to stand behind those supposed beliefs.

I see no impassioned speeches for principle, always political expediency to the lowest common denominator.

[YoungmoneyJosh]

77. HA! love it.

RE:"I love gays. More ladies for me! (well, I'm married and would never cheat but forever doesn't mean the same thing these days so a wise man keeps his options open)."

[BolivarianHero]

5. Wow!

Rick Warren's best friend opposes equal rights. I didn't see that coming.

[HillWilliam]

6. Our Farce Advocate in action -- again

Every time the LGBT community threatens to make an inch of progress, this administration has fought it. Every. Single. Time. I'm sick unto death hearing about token offerings and token appointments that don't mean one single goddam thing to the rest of us outside the Beltway. I still can't get married, my fellows still can't serve in the military openly, I still can be fired for being gay, if I didn't own my own home I could possibly be evicted from a rental property for being gay, the DOJ has yet to enforce the new hate crimes law protecting LGBT (second-class) citizens.

There have been three separate federal court rulings finding DADT unconstitutional. The majority of the American public believes the law is antiquated and needs to go. Mr Obama let a bad bank bill die on his desk in a pocket veto, yet he has to come fuck with us again. Time after time after time the DOJ has fought GLBT equality on several separate issues. They're fast approaching "Kiss My Ass"-ville.

[AllTooEasy]

68. You are just plain ignorant...the President has to defend ALL laws...

...against judicial opposition to his/her fullest capabilities.

Otherwise he/she risks impeachment. Repuke Presidents have to defend liberal laws, Liberal Presidents have to defend conservative. PERIOD.

...now no one says that defense has to be successfull :)

[donco6]

102. Except when he doesn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=166714&mesg_id=166714

[bluestateguy]

7. Not until that appeal is filed will I believe it

I am cutting through the media BS and speculation.

[no limit]

9. So you don't think he'll file it?

[bluestateguy]

21. I think there is at least a chance of it yes

I just don't take as Gospel Truth the emanations from the Georgetown Cocktail Party media.

[SunsetDreams]

24. exactly No comment somehow means "expected to appeal" tomorrow

[no limit]

30. They are not basing that claim on the "no comment"

they are basing that claim on their internal sources that work inside the administration.

[SunsetDreams]

33. ahhh anonymous sources

[no limit]

35. Yup, anonymous sources. Do you have a point you would like to make? Or...

was this your way of saying "Ahhh...ok...thanks for the clarification".

[SunsetDreams]

40. Yes my point is, I don't believe Media Hype.

[no limit]

42. Ok, I'll check back with you on a new excuse once they do appeal this

can you give me a preview? Are you one of the people that think DADT needs to be repealed in a "orderly" fashion. Or maybe you are one of the people that thinks it is Obamas duty to uphold the law no matter what.

Come on, just give me a little sneak peak before the offical talking points are faxed over. Thanks.

[SunsetDreams]

48. What are you implying now?

[no limit]

49. I'm just curious what your opinion will be once they do appeal this

[Arkana]

91. The point is that anonymous sources are not necessarily right.

Until they actually file the appeal, they haven't done so yet.

[tomm2thumbs]

10. let's see, appeal ruling, fast-track to Supreme Court, lose there, blame the Court, done

they get themselves off the hook before any other cases can get close to the Supreme Court

nice

[AllTooEasy]

71. Exactly. It's an old trick. they will probably ....

...put a first year law grad on the appeal, give him 24 hrs to write it up, submit it, let the courts laugh at it for a few days, and act "unpleasantly surprised" with the rulling. Repukes pull this BS from the other side when they have to defend a liberal law.

[FreeState]

12. My wallet will soon be closed for good to Obama (as soon as tomorrow) n/t

[HughMoran]

14. Facts are irrelevant

[no limit]

16. Like the fact that you think gay people suddenly not losing their jobs will hurt the military

[SunsetDreams]

25. When you say "you think" to that poster, where did they imply that?

[no limit]

27. He quoted the administration and emphasised that point in post 13.

So I assume that he agrees with the administration.

Of course if I'm wrong this poster could come back and correct me, don't hold your breath.

[SunsetDreams]

31. I just read post 13, and your implication of what the poster said

is not there.

[no limit]

37. He emphasised the arugmnet that they need to disband DADT in an orderly fashion

you tell me, what does that mean?

[SunsetDreams]

43. not what you imply the poster means. He was quoting an article.

Even from the article, if you just take the quote from Robert Gibbs, even he doesn't say what you say he does.
When a poster, bolds something in an article, they are emphasizing a point. It doesn't mean that poster feels that way, but just pointing out words that may be important.

[no limit]

44. Can you please answer my question? What does Gibbs mean?

And by him quoting that part of the article he clearly agrees with it, wouldn't you say? Or do you always go around the internet posting quotes with emphasis for things you disagree with?

[HughMoran]

51. He doesn't want the decision overturned on appeal in the Supreme Court

The correct procedure is to have Congress change the law - this is what Gibbs said.

[SunsetDreams]

54. Well hello there, that is what I read too

[no limit]

59. Since I have you here too might as well try to following this logic with you as well

so the fear is that the supreme court might overturn the ruling under appeal. Which is why they need to appeal this to the supreme court?

Wow, that makes total sense (as long as you don't think about it).

[no limit]

55. No, that's not what he said. And let me get your logic straight

you are saying that he is worried about it being overturned on appeal in the supreme court which is why they want to appeal this to the supreme court?

[HughMoran]

62. Is this court decision the final word on this in your opinion?

Isn't it better to appeal and lose (as unconstitutional) at the highest court in the land than have this reversed later by Congress or another court case brought by Republicans?







(fixed dumb typo)

[no limit]

63. yes, if they dont appeal this would be the final word.

The current ruling is just as powerful as a supreme court ruling. The only difference is that this can be appealed within the next 60 days, where as supreme court rulings can not be appealed.

[SunsetDreams]

53. Why don't you ask Gibbs?

That would be best instead of reading into something he was quoted as saying in an article.
"And by him quoting that part of the article he clearly agrees with it, wouldn't you say?"
In your OP, you left out Gibbs full quote, did you not? The poster bolded Gibbs full quote, did he not?
Does that mean that the poster necessarily agrees with that quote? No, it simply means they are bolding the FULL comment, that you left out of the OP so that others might see it.

[no limit]

57. Wow, what a lame excuse. Yeah, let me get Gibbs on the phone real quick

and yes, I left out his quote from my OP. Because 1) I disagree with it and 2) you are not allowed to post entire articles, just parts of it (but you already knew that).

[SunsetDreams]

60. Which part was a lame excuse?

Your reason #1 is fair enough I suppose, when you are trying to present an argument.
Your reason #2 is correct, but you still had much more room to quote. You can quote 4 paragraphs, and you quoted 4 sentences, still plenty of room to include his full quote for context. But then we are back to your reason #1, so I guess it's a wash.

[no limit]

66. The excuse was you not wanting to answer the question and instead telling me to ask Gibbs

as if I have that type of access.

You can't answer the question without pointing out how absolutely insane his statement is so you simply refuse to answer it. Above you said that you thought he meant that he didn't want the supreme court to overturn the ruling, which is why they must appeal this ruling to the supreme court. I simply can't wait for you to explain this brilliant logic to me that I'm sure you thought out in great detail.

[SunsetDreams]

69. You asked me what I thought he meant? Yes?

By saying ask Gibbs what he meant by his statement, is not some mere excuse. He in fact is the ONLY one who can explain if he has some hidden underlying meaning, or whatever.

I can't answer the question "What do I think he means by that statement" simply because I'm not Gibbs, and I don't read into something somebody says, or make assumptions. I ask the source, and when that's not possible, I simply wait for clarification if it's a point I don't understand.

[no limit]

70. Ok, you wanna play dumb. No problem, let me rephrase the question

Do you think that this ruling will bring disorder to the military if it is not appealed?

You also did say above that you read his statememnt to mean that he didn't want the supreme court to overturn this. Are you going to explain this logic to me?

[SunsetDreams]

72. I don't know who you are quoting but it is not me

Let's go back over what I have said.

I do not believe Media Hype. I do not believe anonymous sources.
I do not make assumptions, or read into something someone says.
The DOJ having no comment, does not make an appeal tomorrow make.

If Gibbs had said "this ruling will bring disorder to the military if it is not appealed", I might have something to work with.
Since he did not, and in fact said it needed to be done by congress, not the courts, I'll reserve a response to your question.

I need to go make dinner. I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

[no limit]

74. Post 54, you agreed with his interpretation of what Gibbs said.

Lets forget about Gibbs for a second. Do you believe that repealing DADT now will have serious consequances in our military? Will it cause any kind of disorder?

[Fearless]

23. +1 I don't see how any GLBTQ person could concionably donate if they do appeal. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. The Log Cabin Repubs continue to donate to Republicans, and I suspect

it's because they feel they better represent them. Since the GLBT community is not a monolith, I suspect there are many who don't feel the way you do. Just guessing.

[cyr330]

81. I CERTAINILY Will N-O-T

I'll give to my state Democratic Party (California & San Francisco), but I'm not giving another red cent to Obama.

On edit, I don't even mind giving $$ to Dems around the country, MoveOn.Org, etc, but the Obama campaign? Forget it. I'll support whatever candidate challenges Obama for the nomination.

[HughMoran]

13. President Barack Obama "strongly believes it's time for this policy to end."

"The president strongly believes this policy is unjust, detrimental to our national security and that it discriminates against those who are willing to die for this country," Gibbs told reporters, saying he discussed the matter with the president earlier Wednesday morning.

Emphasizing process over time, Gibbs repeatedly told reporters that ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is more a matter of how and not when. The president, Gibbs said, believes the law should be changed by Congress, not by the courts, to allow for a smoother transition away from the policy by the military, which is fighting two wars.

The ignorance expressed by many is mind-numbing.

[no limit]

15. Yes, The ignorance expressed by many sure IS mind-numbing

what damage to the military will be done if today we stop firing gay people from that institution? Will the military suddenly become fabulous? Oh noes, the horror!!!111

[t0dd]

58. +1.

[keepCAblue]

61. +1,000,000

[Chipper Chat]

19. Congress can't agree on what brand of toilet paper to place in the

Capitol johns. Oh yes, I'm sure if we just "wait" Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Dan Coats will be salivating to finally end DADT as the first order of business in 2011. Sigh.

[Dragonfli]

20. He does have a habit of saying one thing while doing the opposite, I agree!

[DeSwiss]

41. No one could be that stupid. n/t

[beforeyoureyes]

45. Barney Frank was on Olberman and he implored the administration to DO NOTHING

Political calculation. Stupid one.

The 'where yeah gonna go' won't work if they don't give us a real choice between parties.

Disgusting.

[AllTooEasy]

79. That's what the appeal is going to be...nothing

Think about it...would he want to lose this one. Once the Supreme Court shoots down Obama's weak appeal, it's over for the DADT foes.

[beforeyoureyes]

47. Quick action on this- what about halting foreclosures so the fraudulent banksters can't steal

So righteous.

:sarcasm:

[ZombieHorde]

52. Hopefully he will just "look forward" instead. nt

[AllTooEasy]

64. Unfortunately, he has to...it's his job

It's the duty of the executive branch (specifically the Judicial Department) to defend with full and adequate representation all US laws against judicial opposition. Even laws that the president doesn't like. That's just a sad reality in this case, but a great reality when a Repuke President has to protect a civil rights law :)

Now, the quality of that appeal is another story...Rachael Maddow did a great piece on how well the Justice Department "defended" the US in a recent DADT case.

Don't be surprised if the Obama Administration loses this one BIG TIME.

[no limit]

67. Where is it spelled out that the DOJ must appeal this ruling?

[AllTooEasy]

76. I have a long answer, but here's the briefest point I can provide...

Many long, and I mean MANY and LONNNNG legal briefs have been written on Presidential Discretion in Judicial matters since the first Congress. I'm not going through all of them, but it starts with the oath of office:

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.

Now the oath only states the "Constitution", but the President must assume all laws are constitutional until a law is ruled constitutional, and therefore that all laws are "endorsed" by the Constitution. As a result he/she must defend ALL laws, including THIS pile of BS. A President doesn't have the authority or right to determine constitutional accuracy and therefore subjectively decide which laws he/she will "preserve, protect, and defend". Otherwise the Executive Branch is making laws, which is overstepping the rights/duty of Legislative Branch, and/or judging constitutional accuracy which is the exclusive right of the Judicial Branch. Justice Department appeals are traditionally classified as legal defenses.

If this is not the case, a future Repuke President could view all liberally viewed laws like abortion rights as unconditional and simply not enforce them, or worse allow any weak, right wing legal challenge to easily overturn them.

Politically speaking, the key phrase in the oath is "to the best of my ability". How would you know if the Justice Department is giving their best defense/appeal? That's the grey area where the Executive branch can get away with overturning a law it really doesn't want. Just don't get caught or Pres risk impeachment.

I apologize for any legal holes, the intention was to be brief.

[boppers]

90. +1

They should appeal it just as heavily as they fought it in the court.

(If you don't know what I'm talking about, you should read the judge's decision.)

[msanthrope]

95. Smartest post on the thread. People should calm the fuck down and read p85

of the Memorandum of Opinion if they want any insight into how the administration 'defended' this.

[msanthrope]

98. Note--p 85 of the pdf, p84 of the opinion....

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act's restrictions on speech are "no more than is reasonably necessary" to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion. (See supra Section IV(C)(1).) Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 250 Filed 10/12/10 Page 85 of 86 Page ID #:7701

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39207033/250-Amended-Final-Memorandum-and-Opinion-10-12-2010

[boppers]

100. It's a brilliant "non defense".

"Hey, we're required to defend the law, so that's what we're doing."

When people talk about chess, this is why.

[msanthrope]

97. But let's not forget how the Obama administration "defended" this law.....

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act's restrictions on speech are "no more than is reasonably necessary" to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion. (See supra Section IV(C)(1).) Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 250 Filed 10/12/10 Page 85 of 86 Page ID #:7701

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39207033/250-Amended-Final-Memorandum-and-Opinion-10-12-2010

[Exilednight]

88. Actually, Chief Justice Roberts says they don't ............

As a general matter, the Department has traditionally adhered to a policy of defending the constitutionality of federal enactments whenever "reasonable" arguments can be made in support of such statutes — i.e., whenever the constitutionality of the law is not fairly precluded by clear constitutional language or governing Supreme Court case law. This practice has been predicated on the notion that because the political branches — the Congress that voted for the law and the President who signed it — have already concluded that the statute was constitutional, it would be inappropriate for DOJ lawyers to take it upon themselves to reject the constitutional judgment shared by the President and the legislature.

There are, however, historical exceptions to this general practice. Almost all of the exceptions fall into one of three categories. The first category is cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable. This category isn't really an "exception" to the "rule" as much as it is an illustration of how the rule operates in practice: The newly governing Supreme Court decision eliminates any reasonable argument that might have been made in the statute's defense, other than asking the Court to overrule its governing precedent (a tactic that the SG very rarely employs, but that is not unheard of, as in the second flag-burning case (Eichman), and in Agostini v. Felton). The second category involves statutes that in DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself (e.g., Chadha; Bowsher v. Synar). The third, and smallest, category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. The most famous such case was probably U.S. v. Lovett, in 1946. More recently, after the first President Bush vetoed the "must-carry" provisions of a cable television bill on constitutional grounds and Congress overrode the veto, the Bush (41) Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. (The Clinton Administration reversed this decision and subsequently prevailed in its defense of the law in the Supreme Court in the Turner Broadcasting litigation.)


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/actually-mr-president-the-doj-does-choose-not-to-defend-discriminatory-laws-20090819/#ixzz12HzrHouI

[frederico]

73. Presidents are obligated to defend any existing law

It's the way our system works. It is not Obama's fault.

[no limit]

75. Let me repeat myself. Where is it written that this is in fact the case?

[AllTooEasy]

78. Read my post a couple levels above.

It's not a happy post, but the same consequences prevent Repuke Presidents from commiting "negligent homicide" on our laws.

[Exilednight]

89. You're mistaken. Read post #88

[donco6]

103. No they're not. Obama let another challenge go unappealed just yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=166714&mesg_id=166714

[cyr330]

80. I think I'm going to have to leave DU

I cannot stand that motherfucker anymore. I voted for him, sent money, worked as I have for the Democratic Candidate since 1972. I'm DONE. I'll vote for all Democratic Candidates in the 11/02 election, but I'm DONE with Obama.

On edit, this is making me so angry that I've gotten a headache from it! I need to just calm down and take it in stride. Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with him?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

82. take a look at post 76 n/t

[meowomon]

84. I am with you on that boat.

Do the Democrats think that letting the Log Cabin Rethuglicans help repeal DADT is good politics for the base? It certainly doesn't lead me to believe that the Democrats care about human rights the way the L.C.R. do.

I may change my registration to Independent because of this. ( I could never be rethuglican) I am totally disgusted with the way so many Democrats think it is ok for the president to spit on us time and time again.

Now, we knew he didn't want us to get married, but why does he pay all this lip service to getting rid of DADT and then appeal a judges decision? They don't HAVE to appeal. That is not required.

[cyr330]

87. He sure does want the GLBT vote. . .

I was so disgusted during the campaign when a journalist asked him if he'd read some book to his daughters, "Susie Has Two Daddies. . ." Obama said, "I wouldn't read it to them. . . but my wife would."

Fuck him. He's so disgustingly disengenuous.

I suppose I'll vote for him should he be the Dem Candidate, but I hope to FUCK that somebody else beats that asshole out of the nomination.

[donco6]

107. I'm not sure it's going to matter by 2012.

The rate he's losing support, it'll be all over but the shouting.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

85. Ahhh, yes....

...the "progressive" President.

My ass.

[GOPNotForMe]

92. This poses a very interesting legal question

I'm 100 percent for the DEATH of DADT but I do worry about the implications of letting a president pick and choose which laws to let die at the hands of judicial decrees at the trial court level. On the one hand, the president is obligated to defend the constitutionality of U.S. laws whether he personally likes them or not and it's a bit scary to think that he could just say no to appealing it. Think about the implications if it were a right-wing trial judge striking down an important progressive law and President Bush decided not to appeal it? We'd be LIVID.

On the other hand, however, I wonder whether the DOJ putting on a robust defense of the law at the trial court level (and then losing) means that the president has fulfilled his obligation to defend the laws? Does he have to appeal it to the circuit courts? All the way to the supreme court? For every law? It's an interesting question.

I want DADT dead now and I deep down hope that the DOJ doesn't appeal the ruling, but I think it could have long-lasting repercussions that aren't so good (aside from the fact that an evil law will be off the books).

Florida's a good example - the trial court struck down the gay adoption ban as unconstitutional and then the state appealed it to one of the district courts of appeal, which agreed with the trial court. The state (through the Department of Children and Families) announced it would not appeal the decision to the Fla. Supreme Court. It's an odd way for the executive and judicial branches to do an end run around the legislature which is too lazy and right-wing to repeal the ban.

Maybe the DOJ could do a really shitty appeal of the DADT ruling? That's what DCF did in Florida - the worst appeal ever. Basically threw the case because they knew the ban was untenable.

Sorry for any incoherence.

ETA: Like Glenn Greenwald said on Twitter, be mad about President Obama not using an executive order and stop-gap powers to halt DADT enforcement. THAT'S where he could legitimately end it.

[robcon]

104. The administration feels obligated to defend a law passed by Congress and signed by the President

It's the Justice Dept's role to defend duly enacted legislation.

I don't think their heart is in it, though.

[donco6]

106. But if it helps fundie Christians, they feel no such compulsion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service's regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment-protected activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency's policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.

The Justice Department declined to appeal the ruling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407137.html