Let the spin begin: DOJ Declines To Appeal Ruling Allowing Christianists To Proselytize in parks

[WillParkinson]

DOJ Declines To Appeal Ruling Allowing Christianists To Proselytize In Parks

The Department of Justice has elected to let stand a court ruling which allows Christianists and other religious groups to demonstrate, preach, and proselytize in federal parks. The original case was brought by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund over a preacher who was made to stop handing out pamphlets at Mount Rushmore.

"It was a bureaucratic nightmare," said Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit Christian legal defense group. "He was completely stymied from sharing his Christian views with anybody else." The case "establishes that national parks are no different than any other public park," Kellum said. "There's no distinction now between Mount Rushmore and the city park down the street." Groups of 25 or fewer people may now demonstrate or distribute or sell printed material in designated areas of national parks and historic sites without a permit, according to interim regulations to be published soon in the Federal Register.

Even though this decision by the DOJ is unrelated to DADT, Servicemembers United feels it is emblematic of the Obama administration's hypocrisy. Via press release:

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. "Servicemembers United renews its call for the administration to withdraw its appeal of both the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' ruling and the injunction pursuant to that ruling."

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj-declines-to-appeal-ruling-allowing.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Our country is run by Hell's outcasts

And YES that definitely includes the Democrats.

[Smashcut]

2. But but but...this can't BEEEEE!!!

[gaspee]

3. WTF?

And people think we are anti-Obama when we complain about this administration's history with GLBT issues.

What a slap in the face!

What possible spin can this be given?

[polichick]

4. Is this a joke? nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

6. That's impossible, they're obligated by law and precedent to appeal every ruling.

:sarcasm:

[katsy]

19. Yeah. I went thru that argument yesterday

and gave the person the benefit of the doubt. What a bunch of shit.

[joeybee12]

7. I'm giving up on this..at least here arguing this issue....

it is obviously up to the DOJ whether to appeal or not on ANYTHING...it's very discretionary. Of course, now all the armchair consitutioanl scholars will get thier panties in a bind arguing how this is different...it's disgusting and I refuse to be insulted by their lack of intelligence and reason.

[MuseRider]

16. (((hugs))) n/t

[joeybee12]

18. Thanks!

:hi:

[elehhhhna]

8. does disturbing the peace enter into this somewhere? hello?

[HillbillyBob]

9. A few words of advice. .Pepper spray and have your own

bible quotes ready...
I think a hot cup of coffee might tend to shut them down too. who do these people think they are? I think we might want to consider bashing them. I mean after all gawd will defend em won't he? This is one fag who is really tired of a lifetime of put downs, harassment, physical assault (and told by the pigs that fags don't have rights), property damage.

Some assholes from Bob Jones University. Eunichs on parade tried to stuff pamphlets through the window of my van when we stopped at a rest stop in SC a few years ago. The window was open a crack, I threw them out on the ground.

My aide dog does not normally become aggressive , boy did she that time though I offered to let the puke meet her but he ran away the sissy boi. These so called straight folks sure are f&&&&d up.

edit to add. I am not that much of a firebrand all the time, but when I stop at a rest stop on an interstate highway I should not be harassed by religious a**wipes, quoted at called names or have garbage push through my windows. I dont advocate randomly kickin the crap out of Christians..just KKKreestians in retaliation. The are too f ing brainwashed to understand words like mind your own business.

[Skinner]

10. Let me preface this by saying I am no legal scholar.

On the face of it, this seems inconsistent and unfair in light of the fact that the Obama Justice Department is appealing the DADT ruling. Like many people here, I had assumed that the Justice Department was obligated to appeal DADT, either as a matter of law or as a matter of custom. This would seem to contradict that.

So I read the article and tried to figure out if, perhaps, there was some explanation for why the Justice Department might not be obligated to appeal this case.

The only difference I could find that might be relevant is that the park service rule is a departmental regulation, whereas DADT is a law enacted by Congress. If I had to guess, I think that might be the explanation for the lack of appeal in this case. Perhaps the Justice Department is under no obligation to appeal departmental regulations.

If there are any DU legal experts who could shed light on this, that would be helpful.

[soleft]

13. I appreciate this on an intellectual basis

But it doesn't make my heart feel any better.

[Skinner]

17. I can understand why you feel that way.

:hug:

[ThomCat]

14. The only difference is that religion has a privilaged place in our society

and we have a very disadvantaged place in society, hence very unequal treatment, and lots of rationalizing and twisting of logic to try to make it seem reasonable.

[Skinner]

15. Respectfully, if my logic is twisted,

I would appreciate it if you, or someone else, would do me the favor of untwisting it.

[ThomCat]

23. It has already been posted at least once,

that the DoJ doesn't have to appeal DADT ruling. They choose too. If they simply sat on the DADT for 60 days and did nothing, DADT would become history. Their reasons for wanting to appeal DADT are what is missing.

Their reason for not wanting to appeal this case is obvious... because it involves the right to preach, which is a customarily protected right even if it isn't a legally protected one. Obama has shown a great deal of respect for religion and faith. He has attended church consistently his entire life, and the same church for the past 20 years. He retained Bush's office of Faith Based Initiatives, despite protests from the left. He respects preaching so much that he brought in a favorite preacher to the inauguration despite the uproar that caused with supporters because of that preacher's anti-gay rhetoric. He publicly opposes Marriage equality because of his religious convictions, showing that he even allows religion to influence policy decisions (as if that wasn't common and obvious).

Obama has mentioned in speeches that he respects LGBT rights, but his actions haven't shown this respect nearly matching his words or even nearly equivalent to level of respect he shows for religion. So it is no surprise that he would have his DoJ protect religion more strongly and to a different standard than LGBT rights.

Everything possible is done to protect religious rights. Only the bare minimum is done to protect LGBT rights, and even then, only when there is political heat making it necessary.


Your post started from the apparent assumption that DADT had to be appealed, and this case involving preaching didn't need to be appealed for some reason, and then looked for what was different was. The error, assuming that DADT must be appealed, has already been addressed and debunked repeatedly.

[Skinner]

24. There appears to be some uncertainty on when DOJ must appeal.

Here's what the Washington Post says:

"The Justice Department is generally required to uphold existing law and is expected to appeal rulings even when the president might agree with them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101306588.html

Obviously "generally required" and "is expected" are fudge words. Does anyone know specifically what they mean in this context?

[jberryhill]

28. Without getting into a lot of depth...

This case involved an administrative regulation, not a statute.

If you think about it, the administration has broader discretion relative to administrative regulations because, after all, they are the administration. The Dept of the Interior made this rule, and not subject to a specific congressional mandate.

It is not analogous to a situation involving a statute, which is an act of congress, and not one of the executive branch's own departments.

Executive determinations are challenged all of the time. If you win a case against the IRS in tax court, it isn't automatically appealed by the IRS.

[glitch]

30. Even more wiggle room than that, "where reasonable" is also in the definition of when DOJ appeals.nt

[The Philosopher]

31. From what I've read

of two DOJ legal opinions, the DOJ may or may not appeal, depending on whether the Executive Branch agrees with the law in question AND if they can make a reasonable argument for whichever action they take.

In a 1994 opinion, Walter Dillinger wrote:

The Supreme Court plays a special role in resolving disputes about the constitutionality of enactments. As a general matter, if the President believes that the Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue. If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

[vaberella]

20. That's what I thought. I thought the law of the land is something completely different. n/t

[katsy]

21. I'm steamed.

I'll be good. But I am an athiest. This is not right and the technicalities don't make their actions feel any more right.

One more question, Skinner: How can anyone believe that this congress will do the right thing? Or anything? Is this just to stall a decision by the lower court that they don't like?

[jberryhill]

26. Yes, you are correct - it is an administrative regulation, not a statute

The administration has a lot of discretion relative to regulations promulgated by executive departments.

They are, after all, executive departments.

Statutes enacted by Congress are not in the same category.

But, whatever...

[glitch]

29. Let's say this does apply to National Park rules vs Congressional law. (although I disagree)

How does this apply to the continued and increased abandonment of Habeas Corpus?

This is Constitutional Law, and it is abandoned. It is it ok to abandon law at the very foundation of our Constitution but not congressional law declared unconstitutional by our courts?

The hypocrisy is on several levels, not just this one. And if you want legal scholars to give you input, try all the lawyers in Congress who have signed a letter to the administration asking them not to appeal. John Kerry is one of them.

[donco6]

11. Can I just say -

:puke:

[closeupready]

12. There we go.

:mad:

[Laughing Mirror]

22. Executive discretion on appeal memo

From http://www.palmcenter.org/files/ExecutiveDiscretiononAppealMemo.pdf

In Defending Congress, Mr. Waxman describes two situations in which the duty to defend has not been absolute. First, there is executive discretion to decline to defend federal law when the president believes the law intrudes upon his express constitutional authority, such as the commander-in-chief authority. In those instances, DOJ may decline to defend a law that reaches too broadly and inappropriately restricts, for example, the president’s ability to direct military forces.

The second circumstance in which DOJ has discretion to choose not to defend a federal law is the most important for purposes of this memo, although the first is complementary and supports the conclusion that discretion exists. Under the second exception, the executive branch has discretion to choose not to defend a federal law when that defense would involve asking the Supreme Court to disregard or alter one of its constitutional rulings. “Most commonly,” Mr. Waxman explained, “cases falling under this exception involve statutes whose constitutionality has been undermined by Supreme Court decisions rendered after the law’s enactment."

The usual reasons for DOJ’s customary practice of defending federal law against constitutional challenge fall away when an intervening decision of the Supreme Court, issued after the law was passed, calls the law’s constitutionality into serious question. In this situation, DOJ has discretion to make a constitutional judgment, and it can do so within the traditional structure of how these decisions to defend, or not to defend, are typically made. Now that the government has had full opportunity in Log Cabin Republicans to introduce evidence in justification of “don’t ask, don’t tell”—and has had none to offer beyond the law’s legislative history—DOJ is in a position to make a discretionary constitutional judgment that continued appeal is unwarranted.

While the president has a constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Art. II, Sec. 3), he also takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, Sec. 1). Both the president and Congress have an independent duty to ensure their actions conform to the Constitution.

Although the second exception—an intervening Supreme Court decision that upsets the constitutional assumptions under which the law was enacted—is sufficient to justify a DOJ decision to not appeal in Log Cabin Republicans, the first exception supports the same use of discretion. The president has discretionary authority to conclude that the law intrudes too deeply on commander-in-chief authority because it can remove valuable service members from the chain of command, normally without warning and without needed replacements.

___________________________

So, what gives?

[NMMNG]

25. Religious bullies win again

And it's obvious which ones our government panders to.

[queerart]

27. Indeed.....

One must sort out when to appeal a ruling and when not to.....


... and we all know this is done by swinging a dead cat, and if a witch is struck with any of the 13 turns, while standing on one foot during the second Wednesday of the month; while a lunar eclipse is about to finish with the sun positioned whereas the Aurora Borealis is only sending off pink hues while a Queer is being tortured...... then, and only then can a decision be made about what ruling should be appealed........



OR...... most times....... a fucking cigar, is a fucking cigar......

[Irishonly]

32. This sucks

I guess I don't want to understand it. My heart tells me the DOJ is wrong and my head doesn't even want to know if there is some legal reason it would have to be done. I go with my heart on this one and my heart says it's wrong.