High court rejects challenge to DODT

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree that's exactly what he's doing. He sees getting healthcare to 45 million people as a higher priority. But he's got years to go and I absolutely believe he will get to it first term.

We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive ... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.

It's on the back burner, but it's simmering, and dinner will be served.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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

you are sadly mistaken....as long as Israel has the US(Big brother) for an allie they will not be forced to win at all costs. Shalom~~@@!!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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

you are sadly mistaken....as long as Israel has the US(Big brother) for an allie they will not be forced to win at all costs. Shalom~~@@!!

One day I'm going to find you and rip out your shift keys.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

most of us wouldn`t be caught dead quoting you....rofl

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

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

you are sadly mistaken....as long as Israel has the US(Big brother) for an allie they will not be forced to win at all costs. Shalom~~@@!!

One day I'm going to find you and rip out your shift keys.

:beer::thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 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..

How am I supposed to use this mild and reasoned post to provoke any sense of outrage. I'm looking for something to help me go crazy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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..

How am I supposed to use this mild and reasoned post to provoke any sense of outrage. I'm looking for something to help me go crazy.

Well,... brother Beam... I can't easily take a side before I figure out what the underlying authority could arguably be. It seems to me one can find fault with Obama's thinking but then he is the President and we elected him.. well.. not me, of course, but I've to give him the right to determine that a fox hole is not a home nor a public street... and It could affect the fighting worthiness of the myopically blind and galactically bigoted.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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..

How am I supposed to use this mild and reasoned post to provoke any sense of outrage. I'm looking for something to help me go crazy.

Well,... brother Beam... I can't easily take a side before I figure out what the underlying authority could arguably be. It seems to me one can find fault with Obama's thinking but then he is the President and we elected him.. well.. not me, of course, but I've to give him the right to determine that a fox hole is not a home nor a public street... and It could affect the fighting worthiness of the myopically blind and galactically bigoted.

I would just issue them Kevlar butt plugs and be done with it.

 

[piasabird]

I thought dont ask dont tell was a presidential order or merely a policy that was implemented. It is still against the law accordning to UCMJ. It is kind of like the federal MJ laws.

 

[jonks]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...rriage_Act_repeal.html

Interesting, Rep. Frank says he's too busy to deal with a partial DOMA repeal Rep. Nadler wants to introduce.

Nadler's bill is aimed mostly at getting federal recognition of same sex marriages, and won't force states to recognize same sex marriage.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 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'?

Since the Israelis went this route, responsiveness is at an all time high. Rather than waiting for morning to get things organized, everyone gets their shit packed the night before.

 

[imported_inspire]

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.

I frankly don't think any capital would be spent. The folks who would be pissed are the folks who already hate his guts. Besides, this is politics - Washington-style. What better way to nix a fiat-law than via extra-constitutional means? Call it proportionate response. Having a court hear the case is arguably not extra-constitutional, anyway, and I'm still unclear as to why he'd stand in the way here.

Does letting the judicial process run its course cost political capital nowadays? If there's any reason behind this other than Obama being chicken-shit and letting the already reviled-by-th-right-and-center Pelosi & company handle it - it's that he needs the media and the country to focus on healthcare and he knows the wingnuts on the right will seize any opportunity to shift the public's focus. If so, I have to disagree, as I don't think DADT measures up to healthcare. On the other hand it doesn't make any sense - why risk alienating your base rather than your enemies? Maybe they're more forgiving?

For the record, I'm a conservative more than a liberal, and I think DADT is fucking stupid.

 

[sportage]

When Obama runs again in 2012, as Ricky once said to Lucy "you got some 'splaining to do!".

PS.
Actually, the fear Obama has to fear in 2012 is not the republicans.
If the "public option" in healthcare is missing in the final, and Obama signs, there goes another support sector.

Obama needs to fear his own base turning on him.
Sadly, this could turn out be the republicans silver lining for 2012.
Turning Obama into another one term Jimmy Carter, poising Hillary for a comeback, and creating "not" a pro-republican base, but more so an anti-Obama "revenge" base.
The republicans could easily take advantage here... and they will.

But... that is Obama's problem, not ours.

He was voted in to give us "real change". That was his running platform.
If he doesnt... and so far it looks that way... well....... enough said.

 

[piasabird]

I think this is interesting. All the Department of Defense is saying is that Don Ask Dont Tell can not be addressed by any state law about gay rights. Military justice falls outside of normal state laws and outside of normal Federal laws. There is in fact a separate court that covers military justice. What I find intersting is the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy basically protects gays from investigations that are fishing expeditions. They can only be prosecuted if they engage in Gay activities. So if they live a lie and are basically straight or celebate and live a lie they will not be prosecuted.

This whole policy has some bad effects on people who are Gay because it forces them to live a lie. Maybe we need a Gay Brigade where gays can feel free to be gay and relax. Probably would not really work. In the long run who cares if a few guys in the military are gay. Just stick them in a tent or a room with other gays and dont worry about it. That way no one is mad to feel uncomfortable. We do the same thing for Women in the military if you think about it. Sex is not allowed in the barracks anyway.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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!)

It's actually sadly common for Congress to cede power to the executive branch.The President's able to run around subverting foreign governments with barely notifying them.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?

Mr Obama only hates you....

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?

Mr Obama only hates you....

Why does Barack Obama hate Fear No Evil?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why does Barack Obama hate gay people?

Mr Obama only hates you....

Why does Barack Obama hate Fear No Evil?

It's your sig!

 

[extra]

I guess they told these lawsuit filers to get out of there lickety-split.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think this is interesting. All the Department of Defense is saying is that Don Ask Dont Tell can not be addressed by any state law about gay rights. Military justice falls outside of normal state laws and outside of normal Federal laws. There is in fact a separate court that covers military justice. What I find intersting is the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy basically protects gays from investigations that are fishing expeditions. They can only be prosecuted if they engage in Gay activities. So if they live a lie and are basically straight or celebate and live a lie they will not be prosecuted.

This whole policy has some bad effects on people who are Gay because it forces them to live a lie. Maybe we need a Gay Brigade where gays can feel free to be gay and relax. Probably would not really work. In the long run who cares if a few guys in the military are gay. Just stick them in a tent or a room with other gays and dont worry about it. That way no one is mad to feel uncomfortable. We do the same thing for Women in the military if you think about it. Sex is not allowed in the barracks anyway.

Sure - while we're at it - let's give them their own water founatins and Officer Training Schools, too!

 

[WHAMPOM]

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

AAAAW! Is Obama taking away your reason to criticize by not using his 'perial exec' pow'r? AAAW!! Running it through Congress, what a concept!:beer:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sportage
When Obama runs again in 2012, as Ricky once said to Lucy "you got some 'splaining to do!".

PS.
Actually, the fear Obama has to fear in 2012 is not the republicans.
If the "public option" in healthcare is missing in the final, and Obama signs, there goes another support sector.

speculation is of course premature, but i think the only thing he really cannot go back on at this point is raising taxes on families making under 250k. He repeated that one so often that breaching it will be the end, and it won't be Carter he resembles, it'll be Read My Lips Bush.

Still, 3 years is a long way away, and I have little doubt about the progression of gay rights under his admin.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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

AAAAW! Is Obama taking away your reason to criticize by not using his 'perial exec' pow'r? AAAW!! Running it through Congress, what a concept!:beer:

the only thing wrong I see in Cad's statement is the use of the word "certain."

has there been any person or issue he hasn't been willing to drop rather than fight for when it became politically expedient? if he's not willing to go to bat for the public option on his primary domestic agenda issue, I'm certainly not holding my breath for him to slug it out over gay rights.