Appealing the decision striking down DADT is a HUGE mistake.

[stevenleser]

Perhaps I should say "Would be" a huge mistake since only an intent to appeal has been filed, not an actual appeal.

It's a huge mistake in many ways. Let's list them:

1. It's something that President Obama said he would do, said he believes in and its something we all want here and it has been handed to us on a silver platter in a way for which we can't even be criticized. This on what is otherwise a contentious issue. Politically, it doesn't get better than that. Declare victory in a big speech and celebration and take the win. The administration could even be super cautious (or cowardly depending on your take) and wait until after the election to announce they will officially not appeal. They can signal that intent well in advance.

2. Legislation can always enshrine the decision later. Pass a bill that says no discrimination, etc., and that codifies the militaries plans for coexistence into law and regulation.

3. The Log Cabins would be able to make the case that they, a Republican group, got DADT killed and a Democratic President brought it back from the dead. The Log Cabins like to make crazy claims anyway so this would be an easy one for them. The LGBT community is already quite annoyed at the administration and rightfully so. On top of that we should give the Log Cabins this juicy talking point? I dont think so. HUGE mistake. BIG.

The appeal does not make sense. You can argue around the Executives responsibility to defend laws passed by congress by giving a speech saying that this should not extend to laws struck down that were discriminatory. No one will question that and it would not give the Republicans ammo to arbitrarily not defend laws later. Besides, we cannot worry about what screwed up things the Repukes will do. They dont need excuses to do crazy things, they just do them.

[ruggerson]

1. recommended

There is also the possibility that the Senate will fail to pass repeal in the lameduck session.

A bird in the hand...

The law is dead. Declare victory and move on.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Agreed. I guess we'll see in about, what, 30 days? Whatever the deadline is. nt

[frazzled]

3. The judge's ruling did not strike down DADT

It simply ordered the government not to enforce it. DADT would still be a federal law, passed by Congress, on the books, until repealed by Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are several reasons why this ruling must be appealed:

(1) It needs to go to SCOTUS for a decision on constitutionality. That would end the law.

(2) You really can't have a single judge force an order on the government. What about the judge in Florida today who ruled in favor of the right-wing attorneys general in saying parts of the health care reform bill are unconstitutional? What if the government did not appeal that to a higher court? You want some crank of a judge in Florida to overrule the United States Congress and the Executive Branch?

(3) A future president could act to restore enforcement under some other legal argument if the law remains unrepealed or designated unconstitutional by the highest court. We can't leave it in the hands of the next Republican president.

(3) Congress MUST itself vote to rescind this law. It needs to come up for a vote on its own, not buried in a military appropriations budget where all kinds of politics are at play. Straight up or down on the merits. I assure you it will be repealed.

President Obama said in no uncertain terms today that DADT will be ended under his watch. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he wants it done right. So y'all chill and have some faith. For seventeen years this law has been on the books. Because there was never a chance of ending it before, during the Clinton administration and certainly under the Bush administration, almost no one even tried. Now that we have a president who has vowed to end it, our patience is short. It will end, and it will end definitively, not under the cloud of a single judge or an executive order, or a government that didn't dot all its i's and cross all its t's.

[donco6]

4. Must . . . click . . . recommend . . . must . . . do it . . . now

There. Never thought I'd see the day.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. There is also the possible violation of the separation of powers...

How far can the Courts go in ordering the military, the provenance of the executive to do anything.

Also, The SCOTUS has final say on what is and is not Constitutional.

[rhett o rick]

6. The Courts ruled that the law is un-Constitutional. They arent telling the military anything.

The Pres could, if he so choose, have ended the effects of DADT as CIC. But he didnt.

[ClarkUSA]

7. To be fair, there is no easy out. Walter Dellinger was on the Rachel Maddow Show making this case.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#39679402

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. He's saying that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[Monk06]

8. Obama is not going to give the Repugs a single issue before the midterms. They would love a fight

over DADT. It's raw meat for the Baggers