High court rejects challenge to DODT

[PokerGuy]

Linky

Seems reasonable to me, the law is pretty clear. I was a little surprised by the fact that the Obama admin requested that the court turn away the challenge.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suppose that if you threw a black soldier in amongst a troop of white guys who were also KKK members, it WOULD create some cohesion related problems.

 

[jonks]

Israel's had openly gay soldiers serving since 1993. Since then their army totally blows. Ha.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks
Israel's had openly gay soldiers serving since 1993. Since then their army totally blows. Ha.

Pun?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jonks
Israel's had openly gay soldiers serving since 1993. Since then their army totally blows. Ha.

Pun?

What did you want him to say, 'Sinse then their army totally sucks'?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Linky

Seems reasonable to me, the law is pretty clear. I was a little surprised by the fact that the Obama admin requested that the court turn away the challenge.

It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

 

[K1052]

No you can't. ?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor
It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

Obama has said he wants DADT repealed, but believes it should be accomplished legislatively, not in the courts.

But Obama hasn't yet moved on DOMA or DADT. Were I gay, I'd like him to throw me a freakin bone already. Ha, again.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor
It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

Obama has said he wants DADT repealed, but believes it should be accomplished legislatively, not in the courts.

But Obama hasn't yet moved on DOMA or DADT. Were I gay, I'd like him to throw me a freakin bone already. Ha, again.

Those issues are taking a back seat to his main issues. Why spend political capital on issues that you viewed as secondary? If they came up, he'd support them, but he isn't going to go out of his way to push for legislation like he is trying to do with health care reform.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor
It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

Obama has said he wants DADT repealed, but believes it should be accomplished legislatively, not in the courts.

But Obama hasn't yet moved on DOMA or DADT. Were I gay, I'd like him to throw me a freakin bone already. Ha, again.

If his administration isn't going to do anything in the near future they shouldn't stand in the way.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor
It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

Obama has said he wants DADT repealed, but believes it should be accomplished legislatively, not in the courts.

But Obama hasn't yet moved on DOMA or DADT. Were I gay, I'd like him to throw me a freakin bone already. Ha, again.

If his administration isn't going to do anything in the near future they shouldn't stand in the way.

It's very rare for any of the branches to voluntarily cede power to the others, regardless of the issue. "Power perceived is power acheived." (name that movie!)

 

[nageov3t]

I thought Obama made his position clear when he said that he wouldn't intercede to stop the persecutions while waiting on it to be repealed and doing nothing to actually advance its repeal.

 

[jonks]

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...xplicit_his_objec.html

Obama Makes Explicit His Objection to DOMA
By Scott Wilson
President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

"While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law," Obama said in the statement.

It's coming.

 

[ZeGermans]

Hey Obama supporters please explain how this isn't him pretending to be liberal while doing jack shit but please his special interests?

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody who is afraid to serve with a poofter is too big a coward to deserve to be in the Army.

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Robor
It doesn't say why the Obama administration requested this - any more on the reasoning behind this move? Not doing anything to help is bad enough. Standing in the way is going to bring more questions - and rightly so.

Obama has said he wants DADT repealed, but believes it should be accomplished legislatively, not in the courts.

But Obama hasn't yet moved on DOMA or DADT. Were I gay, I'd like him to throw me a freakin bone already. Ha, again.

Those issues are taking a back seat to his main issues. Why spend political capital on issues that you viewed as secondary? If they came up, he'd support them, but he isn't going to go out of his way to push for legislation like he is trying to do with health care reform.

hint: Obama doesn't give a fuck about liberal causes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Correction: Obama doesn't want to take a firm stance on certain liberal causes due to politics.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Correction: Obama doesn't want to take a firm stance on certain liberal causes due to politics.

change we can cross our fingers and hope for?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Correction: Obama doesn't want to take a firm stance on certain liberal causes due to politics.

change we can cross our fingers and hope for?

yep, depending on the political expediency of it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Correction: Obama doesn't want to take a firm stance on certain liberal causes due to politics.

change we can cross our fingers and hope for?

yep, depending on the political expediency of it.

Er, how is his stance not firm? He's criticized DOMA in the strongest langauge possible, but because he doesn't take an extra-constitutional route to overturn by fiat a law passed by congress he's somehow faltering? Do you not see how much political capital he's lost just on healthcare? Do you think it would have been wise to move on gay rights too at this point knowing it would further inflame the right of center folks he needs to court for his other measures? He has another 3.5 years. If there isn't significant movement on repealing DADT/DOMA by the end of his first term I'll be fucking shocked. Quote me.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Correction: Obama doesn't want to take a firm stance on certain liberal causes due to politics.

change we can cross our fingers and hope for?

yep, depending on the political expediency of it.

Er, how is his stance not firm? He's criticized DOMA in the strongest langauge possible, but because he doesn't take an extra-constitutional route to overturn by fiat a law passed by congress he's somehow faltering? Do you not see how much political capital he's lost just on healthcare? Do you think it would have been wise to move on gay rights too at this point knowing it would further inflame the right of center folks he needs to court for his other measures? He has another 3.5 years. If there isn't significant movement on repealing DADT/DOMA by the end of his first term I'll be fucking shocked. Quote me.

He just doesn't want the courts stealing his eventual glory when (if) he gets around to addressing it. He's not doing it out of a scholarly interest in the process by which it happens. I grow less concerned by the day about the exact route to the rights I should enjoy and the political aspirations of individual politicians who promise them to get into office.

Whenever this comes up in a group of my gay friends most express significant unhappiness and are not placated by statements of intent, personal notes, or other platitudes which have to date been backed up by absolutely nothing of any substance.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jonks

Er, how is his stance not firm? He's criticized DOMA in the strongest langauge possible, but because he doesn't take an extra-constitutional route to overturn by fiat a law passed by congress he's somehow faltering? Do you not see how much political capital he's lost just on healthcare? Do you think it would have been wise to move on gay rights too at this point knowing it would further inflame the right of center folks he needs to court for his other measures? He has another 3.5 years. If there isn't significant movement on repealing DADT/DOMA by the end of his first term I'll be fucking shocked. Quote me.

color me a cynic, the DNC has given us more than enough ground to base our skepticism in.

 

[LunarRay]

There IS an interesting issue here...

Under Justice Jackson's three tier approach to Presidential Authority it would seem that the President derives his Command Authority over the military directly from the Constitution and that makes it a 'Tier One' condition.

Ergo, any act of Congress impeding on Presidential Authority ought to be deemed Unconstitutional... Don't Ask Don't tell seems to be a presidential prerogative in the Command decision making regarding who he wants or don't want under his Command. So the law on the books seems to be in keeping with Clinton's and now Obama's position.

The folks who filed in the 9th circuit (I think it was) wanted the DADT to be thrown out so they could serve openly... and that challenges the rights of the Presidential Command Authority... The SCOTUS made the right decision...
Me thinks..

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: K1052
He just doesn't want the courts stealing his eventual glory when (if) he gets around to addressing it. He's not doing it out of a scholarly interest in the process by which it happens.

that makes no sense. if he wanted the glory he'd find a way to overturn it himself. He's doing the opposite. The path he's picking requires congress to get the glory for passing a law which he will sign.

What cannot persist is a country where some marriages are only legal in some of the states. He knows this and he's letting momentum build. More states and more legislators will be coming over to the side of marriage equality in the future. I can't imagine any legislators moving from a position of marriage equality to a position of 1m1w.

We'll have to wait and see but this really isn't an area where I have a lot of doubt. After Obama I'd be very surprised to see any leading democratic nominee for president not wholly in favor of marriage equality, even if they have to do that bs "I believe marriage is 1m1w, but I'm not going to support discriminatory legislation based on my personal and religious beliefs." Even the moderate reps are trying to drop this as a political issue because to oppose it makes you look like a bigot.

Equality is coming.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
He just doesn't want the courts stealing his eventual glory when (if) he gets around to addressing it. He's not doing it out of a scholarly interest in the process by which it happens.

that makes no sense. if he wanted the glory he'd find a way to overturn it himself. He's doing the opposite. The path he's picking requires congress to get the glory for passing a law which he will sign.

What cannot persist is a country where some marriages are only legal in some of the states. He knows this and he's letting momentum build. More states and more legislators will be coming over to the side of marriage equality in the future. I can't imagine any legislators moving from a position of marriage equality to a position of 1m1w.

We'll have to wait and see but this really isn't an area where I have a lot of doubt. After Obama I'd be very surprised to see any leading democratic nominee for president not wholly in favor of marriage equality, even if they have to do that bs "I believe marriage is 1m1w, but I'm not going to support discriminatory legislation based on my personal and religious beliefs." Even the moderate reps are trying to drop this as a political issue because to oppose it makes you look like a bigot.

Equality is coming.

That line of reasoning makes it possible for him to back burner it until such time as he's ready. He's not about to expend that kind of political capital using his office or hound congress to do so either when he has stuff much dearer to his heart on the to do list.