US Department of Justice to Judge: Keep Enforcing DADT

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 7:12 AM GMT
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/23/DOJ_Counters_Log_Cabin_to_Keep_DADT/

    The Department of Justice asked a federal judge Thursday to continue enforcing the military's ban on gay and lesbian service members, despite a ruling earlier this month that struck down "don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

    In a 14-page filing, Justice Department attorneys argued that an immediate, permanent injunction against enforcing the law —one supported by Log Cabin Republicans, which successfully challenged DADT in court and has argued for a halt to all discharges of gay service members — would be "untenable." (A PDF of the government’s brief is here.)

    "Because any injunction in this case must be limited to [Log Cabin Republicans] and the claims it asserts on behalf of its members – and cannot extend to non-parties – plaintiff’s requested world-wide injunction of [DADT] fails as a threshold matter," assistant U.S. attorney Paul Freeborne wrote.

    DADT repeal advocates and attorneys representing Log Cabin Republicans immediately slammed the Justice Department's filing. Dan Woods, lead attorney for the national gay Republican group, called the arguments "ridiculous" and said his team would file a response as soon as Friday.

    "It’s our view that the objections fail to recognize the implications of the government's defeat at this trial," Woods told The Advocate. "This case was never limited to only Log Cabin members. And the request for a stay ignores the harm that would be suffered by current and potential service members during a period of the stay."

    In a late Thursday statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the filing "in no way diminishes the President’s firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT — indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy."

    But Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson said the Obama administration "had a choice to take several different routes [with the injunction], from the moderate and reasonable to the extremely ridiculous. It appears that they decided to go with the latter end of the spectrum."

    Nicholson said the DOJ's filing further erodes faith in the administration for many gays and lesbians seeking substantive change. "Lately a lot of us were holding out hope that there would be a semi-reasonable response to this judicial victory. It appears that [Obama] might be disappointing us yet again," he said.

    The Justice Department's arguments against an injunction come two days after legislative repeal of DADT was blocked in the Senate due to a Republican filibuster of the defense authorization bill, of which a repeal on the ban against openly gay service members is a component.

    In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled earlier this month that the DADT statute, passed by Congress in 1993, violates free speech and due process rights of gay service members. She also ruled that LCR is entitled to a permanent injunction against DADT and gave Justice Department attorneys until Thursday to object to Log Cabin's proposed judgment in the case.

    The Justice Department has argued that Phillips does not have the authority to issue a sweeping injunction against the ban on openly gay service members (Phillips rejected that argument in a February court hearing).

    "[DOJ] has ignored all the law about deference to the military. [Judge Phillips] said before that deference does not mean abdication when constitutional rights were involved," Woods said.

    The Justice Department has not yet filed an appeal in the case.

    Among the government’s arguments in Thursday's filing, Freeborne wrote that an injunction would preclude the government from litigating other legal challenges to DADT, as well as prevent it from considering the terms of a stay banning discharges of gay soldiers. An immediate halt of discharges, they argued, would jeopardize successful implementation of repeal by interfering with the “ability of the Department of Defense to develop necessary policies, regulations, and training and guidance to accommodate a change in the DADT law and policy.”

    “Contrary to [LCR's] repeated suggestions that the Court can simply order the immediate cessation of DADT without any disruption of the military’s operations,” Freeborne wrote, “the Secretary of Defense has stated that, to be successful in implementing a change to the DADT law and policy, the Department of Defense must ‘understand all issues and potential impacts associated with repeal of the law and how to manage implementation in a way that minimizes disruption to a force engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe.’”

    Woods criticized that argument as a been-there, done-that tactic. "It's the same argument they made before the trial. 'Let us have time to study it. Congress is considering repealing it.' Judge Phillips has rejected it before."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 1:41 PM GMT
    "The White House assured gay rights groups on Thursday evening that the Justice Department's decision to object to immediately ending the military's ban on openly gay service members in no way diminishes President Obama's goal of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" law."

    [url]http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp;jsessionid=985A6336F57A317B606AC65C35A4E40A?rssid=597&item=+http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f09%2f24%2fAR2010092401440_mobile.xml+&cid=-1[/url]

    Obama is so full of crap! Srsly! How many times can his Administration work against us and he think we are going to believe him?

    I wish I could get within earshot of him so that I could boo him!!! ... icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 1:58 PM GMT
    I cannot suppress a rant.

    As a disenfranchised Democrat (meaning one who can find nobody to vote for who would truly represent him) I can hardly begin express my disappointment with Obama. I had hoped SOMETHING positive would come from his administration. But he is screwing up everything from the economy (continuing bailouts) to war (expanding it) to health care (a digusting bonanza for the health insurance industry, rivaled only by Hillary Clinton's fiasco years earlier) and now to the rights of gay citizens (DADT). What a bunch of horsepoop! All he has to do is tell his justice department to back down. But he is more interested in being yet another slimy politician than in doing anything real or meaningful. Shame on that jackass.

    Ok...go ahead. My flame-retardant undies are on.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Sep 24, 2010 2:02 PM GMT
    roughplay saidI cannot suppress a rant.

    As a disenfranchised Democrat (meaning one who can find nobody to vote for who would truly represent him) I can hardly begin express my disappointment with Obama. I had hoped SOMETHING positive would come from his administration. But he is screwing up everything from the economy (continuing bailouts) to war (expanding it) to health care (a digusting bonanza for the health insurance industry, rivaled only by Hillary Clinton's fiasco years earlier) and now to the rights of gay citizens (DADT). What a bunch of horsepoop! All he has to do is tell his justice department to back down. But he is more interested in being yet another slimy politician than in doing anything real or meaningful. Shame on that jackass.

    Ok...go ahead. My flame-retardant undies are on.


    preach on!
  • OklahomaBreak...

    Posts: 167

    Sep 24, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    I don't agree with the bailouts, but I know why they did it. 1) to protect their future campaign donations and 2) to keep American's economic infrastructure from being hit as hard as it could have been. I suspect reason 1 was more persuasive. Since it took the last administration 8 years to screw us over I doubt his could fix things in 2, so I don't hold the economy against him. He is making efforts to close Gitmo, but that too is being stymied by the party of no. Healthcare at least we have something more than we did before.

    While I can truly excuse all the rest of these issues, White House behavior over DADT is very troubling. Up until the past few weeks I was still a locked in vote for him in 2012. Now I am not so sure. It seems he does just enough to be looked at as helping both sides. You can't serve two masters and that is his goal. It will be interesting to see what happens with in the next several months. The democrats would do well to remember as a demographic the gay community has more disposable income than any other and are not happy right now. Also a shift from one party to another just takes a championing of a cause. The democrats before 60's were the more racist party until they decided to court the black vote during the Civil Rights Era. Afterwards they locked in that segment of the population, and became a powerhouse in politics until the right went after the moral majority. From what I have seen in media recently the Republicans, as unlikely as it is to believe, could do the same after their civil war between them and tea partiers is over. Not saying it would be instantaneous, but a good decade of making gay marriage, DADT, and tax cuts part of the conservative agenda would no doubt make a lot of LGBT people think of switching registration. I feel the democrats half-hearted attempts to further goals we want is just another way of saying they feel we are a locked in segment of their base.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 3:48 PM GMT
    roughplay saidI cannot suppress a rant.

    As a disenfranchised Democrat (meaning one who can find nobody to vote for who would truly represent him) I can hardly begin express my disappointment with Obama. I had hoped SOMETHING positive would come from his administration. But he is screwing up everything from the economy (continuing bailouts) to war (expanding it) to health care (a digusting bonanza for the health insurance industry, rivaled only by Hillary Clinton's fiasco years earlier) and now to the rights of gay citizens (DADT). What a bunch of horsepoop! All he has to do is tell his justice department to back down. But he is more interested in being yet another slimy politician than in doing anything real or meaningful. Shame on that jackass.

    Ok...go ahead. My flame-retardant undies are on.


    well said. Time for a third party, perhaps? Thanks for not being a blind 'liberal'. When the Bush regime was in power (I use the word 'regime' to emphasize that Bush never actually won an election), the 'right' - conservatives - were complete morons and blind to reason and reality. When Obama took charge, the left - 'liberals' - became utter imbeciles, blind to reason and reality. It's interesting to me how the anti-war movement literally died and lobotomized itself when Obama became President, as if now that Obama is running the wars, they are "good wars". And as you accurately pointed out, he is expanding the wars, which means that America is now at war in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, (militarizing all of African foreign policy through AFRICOM), and don't forget, they're pushing for a war with Iran! aaaaaah, "change".

    As for the topic, all I have to say is: the U.S. Department of Justice is an oxymoron.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
    Obama is better than McCain. When Obama makes yet another fucktarded, cowardly decision you have to keep repeating "McCain/Palin".

    The problem is that people who voted for Obama wanted a change from the rightwing politics that had led the country into debt. Obama is a center right politician who doesn´t understand that if he keeps playing to the right then he will lose his constituency.
  • OklahomaBreak...

    Posts: 167

    Sep 24, 2010 4:12 PM GMT
    And so the campaigning for the gay vote begins.

    http://current.com/news/92683473_libertarians-fight-to-break-cycle-of-battered-gay-voter-syndrome.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 4:19 PM GMT
    OklahomaBreakdown saidAnd so the campaigning for the gay vote begins.

    http://current.com/news/92683473_libertarians-fight-to-break-cycle-of-battered-gay-voter-syndrome.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 4:28 PM GMT
    Caslon15000 said
    OklahomaBreakdown saidAnd so the campaigning for the gay vote begins.

    http://current.com/news/92683473_libertarians-fight-to-break-cycle-of-battered-gay-voter-syndrome.htm

    Well, since I think the Dems should be thrown out of office and made to lose their jobs until they realize who jeeps them in power, maybe voting Libertarian is an option.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 7:12 PM GMT
    Caslon15000 said
    Caslon15000 said
    OklahomaBreakdown saidAnd so the campaigning for the gay vote begins.

    http://current.com/news/92683473_libertarians-fight-to-break-cycle-of-battered-gay-voter-syndrome.htm

    Well, since I think the Dems should be thrown out of office and made to lose their jobs until they realize who jeeps them in power, maybe voting Libertarian is an option.


    Or, you know, just vote for better Dems.

    Seriously people, primary season just went by and I can't recall a single thread about supporting a pro-LGBT rights candidate against a limp-dicked incumbent.

    I have worked on two NYS senate races in which we primaried an anti-gay Democrat. He just lost reelection this year, but, seeing the mounting LGBT vote and dollar getting behind his opponents consistently he started changing his votes.

    Do what you want with your votes, but the game happens in the primaries and I know for an absolute fact that only a fraction of general election voters even bother with a primary.

    Get off your asses, y'all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 24, 2010 7:14 PM GMT
    Oh, and I forgot that there is something about DOJ being required to defend government policy, but that doesn't seem relevant to this particular case. And thus my usually nuanced approach to happenings in government is replaced with the extension of my middle finger.
  • Sk8Tex

    Posts: 738

    Sep 24, 2010 9:20 PM GMT
    Actions speak louder than wordsicon_exclaim.gif

    Honestly if you think it is unfair, make yourself seen and heard. Do something about it other than nothing at all.
  • OklahomaBreak...

    Posts: 167

    Sep 29, 2010 5:28 PM GMT
    The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
    The Word - Army of Mum
    www.colbertnation.com
    Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 29, 2010 5:43 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Lostboy said Obama is a center right politician


    .... as viewed by those on the very (very) far left.

    The rest of us view him as bordering on socialist (if not socialist/Marxist).


    If by us you mean the bizarrely out-of-touch conservatives of the United States, you'd be right. If by us you mean the rest of the civilized world, Obama is a centrist corporatist.

    Bailouts. Repeat the word bailouts. Didn't happen for the middle class. A Socialist/Marxist would have made it happen for them. Think about it for a second.