BREAKING: Federal judge orders Obama admin. to stop DADT discharges immediately. Will Obama comply,

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: AMERICAblog - John Aravosis - The Advocate

A huge story.

A federal judge has just ordered the Obama administration to immediately cease all "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges.

Will President Obama obey the rule of law, obey a federal judge, obey his conscience and his own political promises? Will he finally take this opportunity, dropped in his lap like manna from heaven, to end DADT as he promised repeatedly? Or will "lawyer Obama" find some absurdly convoluted, heartless, and esoteric legal reason to oppose the judge, appeal the ruling, to yet again break yet another political promise, and give DADT the chance to live yet another day?

Great presidents rise to the occasion. His decision will tell you what kind of president Barack Obama is.

More on AMERICAblog Gay.



Read more: http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/breaking-federal-judge-orders-obama.html

---

At AMERICAblog Gay, you read:

This is huge.

You want to know how to vote in three weeks? Just watch what President Obama does in response to today's order by a federal judge to immediately cease all "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges immediately.

[montanacowboy]

1. I think we have already seen how he reacts

to rulings re: DADT - if he is true to form he won't abide by it

[Renew Deal]

2. Do you have an example of what you're talking about?

[WI_DEM]

3. Of course the president will follow a court order.

[rocktivity]

6. DING DING DING! WI_Dem, you're our grand prize winner!

Of course the president will follow a court order.

Indeed, he probably saw it coming.

I think we've been rope-a-doped again...but I'm not complaining. CUE THE VONAGE THEME!

:woohoo:
rocktivity

[regnaD kciN]

13. ...especially one on an issue his administration tried to get through Congress

Seriously, people here think that Obama, after having urged repeal of DADT, is now going to defy a court order to keep it in place???

I'm about ready to give up on DU entirely.

[Inuca]

4. "You want to know how to vote in three weeks?"

Really? Because if you vote the Rs back in power, they surely will make repelling DADT their first priority, right?

[realisticphish]

5. right

in theory, absolutely, getting rid of people who oppose DADT might be a good idea, but considering who would get in instead...

[RKP5637]

7. The R's will take us right back to the witch trials and the Joe McCarthy days, I have no doubt! The

R's love violence and hatred, and all forms of intolerance. They literally thrive on it...

[glitch]

8. How Obama acts is NOT how we vote in November. He is not running.

Unless you want to give him fewer excuses to cave to the right, in which case GOTV to keep Congress and get to work to make what we do have more progressive.

[arcane1]

9. " You want to know how to vote in three weeks?"

I'm not sure I understand the relevance, since Obama isn't running in this election :shrug:

[Bluebear]

10. I love how people focus on that phrase instead of the news itself

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

15. It's a distraction that shouldn't have been included.

I learned in Real World politics that if you want people to focus on one item, that's what you put in front of them. One item.

I guess the OP just felt compelled to slipped that thinly veiled threat in there for shits and giggles. Unwise move, as we can see by the comments.

Julie

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. "I guess the OP just felt compelled to slipped that thinly veiled threat in there...."

I was quoting John Aravosis from his AMERICAblog Gay website.

Here's another link. It's from good old Fox News. Federal Judge Orders Halt to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Enforcement

{U.S. District Judge Virginia} Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.

Yes, the Log Cabin Republicans. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Give 'em a shout out.

[OHdem10]

11. I do not have the legal background to understand how all this

works. Can a judge in one Jurisdiction have this
power over the whole country?

I am not concerned about the President. I can see
the "Righties" churning churning churning---got to
save civilization.

[Exen Trik]

12. So then was that the math involved?

Don't do it himself and stir up that trouble, but wait until it was court ordered and take no responsibility? Goddamn I hate politics, but if that was the game then it's... just enough, I guess. I recall that the white house actually has to appeal certain things legally, I hope that doesn't apply in this case. And of course if he defies it I'll be pissed, along with many others.

[Grown2Hate]

14. That was my first thought... I thought the DOJ was legally required to fight rulings

that contradict Federal law. I hope they can make an exception, or else it will appear as if the administration is fighting this on policy merits. But, until then, as for the actual ruling... :woohoo: :beer:

[rocktivity]

17. DADT was officially declared unconsitutional a month ago

--it DOES contradict Federal law!

:bounce:
rocktivity

[mcollins]

16. Correct me if I am wrong, but

repeal of DADT means the military can go back to asking if a service member is homosexual and then kick them out. What we need is a law saying anyone can serve.

[Iowa]

19. Even a wimp sometimes does the right thing if provided enough protection...

"His decision will tell you what kind of president Barack Obama is."

I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn. We already know what kind of President he is. He has proved it repeatedly. My money is on him weaseling out of this to appease his ideological soul-mates on the other side of the aisle.

[David Zephyr]

20. DADT is dying in front of our eyes.

This is a real blow to DADT. It can not be minimized.

This is not just a shot across the bow, it's a shot right to the heart.