Obama Administration seeks stay of court order halting Don't Ask Don't Tell

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

    Oct 14, 2010 8:57 PM GMT
    The Justice Department will seek a stay of the District Court order enjoining the military from enforcing DADT:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7247135.html.

    Obama promises an end to DADT but does the reverse. Hope and change!
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Oct 14, 2010 9:28 PM GMT
    I'm a little surprised and I'm not trying to make excuses for this administration (because this admin. has been a bit of a disappointment) but I think the Obama Administration is acting with a little bit of foresight here. This administration has done a decent job of cajoling the joint chiefs and the DOD into reversing their current standing on DADT. Many in the military leadership have expressed a change in heart and have become amendable to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. To have a policy reversal suddenly crammed down their throats by a federal judge would cause A LOT of resentment in the military. The mid-terms are less then three weeks away and Republicans are very likely to take at least one chamber of the legislature. If the DOD suddenly reaffirms its stance on DADT because of the resentment caused by the injunction, you won't be able to find a single republican that will support the repeal--the bill will die and the status quo will remain. And, with the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court, you won't find the necessary support for a repeal there either.

    It's a game of chess. You've got to bide your time and properly set up the pieces before making your move.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 9:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter. The gays will still be suckered into voting Democrat so long as the Democrats keep saying they are "for" the gays.

    And not voting for the Republicans who keep saying they are strongly against the gays. And whose policies, platforms and actions prove they are the sworn enemies of gays in the US.

    As I wrote in another post, Republican supporters like you continue to try this tired tactic with gays: abandon the Democrats because they sometimes behave like weasels, and instead jump into the Republican shark tank. I'm surprised you just don't come right out and tell us to slit our own throats for being gay. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 9:41 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter. The gays will still be suckered into voting Democrat so long as the Democrats keep saying they are "for" the gays.

    And not voting for the Republicans who keep saying they are strongly against the gays. And whose policies, platforms and actions prove they are the sworn enemies of gays in the US.

    As I wrote in another post, Republican supporters like you continue to try this tired tactic with gays: abandon the Democrats because they sometimes behave like weasels, and instead jump into the Republican shark tank. I'm surprised you just don't come right out and tell us to slit our own throats for being gay. icon_rolleyes.gif


    At least the Republicans are transparent on their views on homosexual issues you know where you stand with them, but all you get from the Democrates is lies and broken promises just to get your vote, and you fools fall for it time, and time agin. Change you voting strategy, vote for the better of America, and not you own selfish wants.

    Oh Red how many times in total have you already been married?
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Oct 14, 2010 9:45 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter. The gays will still be suckered into voting Democrat so long as the Democrats keep saying they are "for" the gays.

    And not voting for the Republicans who keep saying they are strongly against the gays. And whose policies, platforms and actions prove they are the sworn enemies of gays in the US.

    As I wrote in another post, Republican supporters like you continue to try this tired tactic with gays: abandon the Democrats because they sometimes behave like weasels, and instead jump into the Republican shark tank. I'm surprised you just don't come right out and tell us to slit our own throats for being gay. icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not really fair, his frustration and disappointment are legitimate. The Dems in general and Obama in particular have promised things without coming through on delivery. Every politician has made promises it can't keep but because the gay community has been so under represented it's a safer bet to piss us off rather than a larger, more influential group.

    And the Democrats don't have the market cornered on supporting gay rights. Don't ignore the fact that the injunction suspending DADT was requested by the Log Cabin Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter. The gays will still be suckered into voting Democrat so long as the Democrats keep saying they are "for" the gays.

    And not voting for the Republicans who keep saying they are strongly against the gays. And whose policies, platforms and actions prove they are the sworn enemies of gays in the US.

    As I wrote in another post, Republican supporters like you continue to try this tired tactic with gays: abandon the Democrats because they sometimes behave like weasels, and instead jump into the Republican shark tank. I'm surprised you just don't come right out and tell us to slit our own throats for being gay. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with. It's, first and foremost with you and most of the others on here, "gay issues" and who cares if the country goes bankrupt in the meantime.


    Thats it they don't care if your country goes bankrupt so long as they receive their hand outs, and get their wants.

    They may know what they want, But God knows what they need. So do the republicans. Democrates say they are for the people and not money in the bank, but how can the government give them the hand outs they demand like free health insurance, when they have bankrupted the state. How many gay democrats love to live the republican lifestyle, so they can put themselves up on a pedestal too. yet bitch when they have too pay for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
    tongun18 saidI'm a little surprised and I'm not trying to make excuses for this administration (because this admin. has been a bit of a disappointment) but I think the Obama Administration is acting with a little bit of foresight here. This administration has done a decent job of cajoling the joint chiefs and the DOD into reversing their current standing on DADT. Many in the military leadership have expressed a change in heart and have become amendable to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. To have a policy reversal suddenly crammed down their throats by a federal judge would cause A LOT of resentment in the military. The mid-terms are less then three weeks away and Republicans are very likely to take at least one chamber of the legislature. If the DOD suddenly reaffirms its stance on DADT because of the resentment caused by the injunction, you won't be able to find a single republican that will support the repeal--the bill will die and the status quo will remain. And, with the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court, you won't find the necessary support for a repeal there either.

    It's a game of chess. You've got to bide your time and properly set up the pieces before making your move.


    You make a lot of sense. Thanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 10:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidDoesn't matter. The gays will still be suckered into voting Democrat so long as the Democrats keep saying they are "for" the gays.

    And not voting for the Republicans who keep saying they are strongly against the gays. And whose policies, platforms and actions prove they are the sworn enemies of gays in the US.

    As I wrote in another post, Republican supporters like you continue to try this tired tactic with gays: abandon the Democrats because they sometimes behave like weasels, and instead jump into the Republican shark tank. I'm surprised you just don't come right out and tell us to slit our own throats for being gay. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with. It's, first and foremost with you and most of the others on here, "gay issues" and who cares if the country goes bankrupt in the meantime.


    Nancy Pelosi's idea of creating jobs hand out unemployment checks.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 14, 2010 10:19 PM GMT
    TexDef07 saidThe Justice Department will seek a stay of the District Court order enjoining the military from enforcing DADT:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7247135.html.

    Obama promises an end to DADT but does the reverse. Hope and change!


    You do realize the Defense bill is being revisited after the elections? After December 1st and before the newly elected officials take office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 10:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with.
    Oh really? Name the most IMPORTANT job or 'responsibility' OUR government has.

    be careful this might bite ya in the ass..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 10:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with.
    Oh really? Name the most IMPORTANT job or 'responsibility' OUR government has.

    be careful this might bite ya in the ass..

    I don't have to. It's all right there in the Constitution. Look it up yourself. icon_wink.gif
    LMAO..Nice deflection.. but it didnt work here...

    C'mon.... name one!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with.
    Oh really? Name the most IMPORTANT job or 'responsibility' OUR government has.

    be careful this might bite ya in the ass..

    I don't have to. It's all right there in the Constitution. Look it up yourself. icon_wink.gif
    LMAO..Nice deflection.. but it didnt work here...

    C'mon.... name one!


    Nope, no deflection, that's what liberals do.

    You're asking to "Name the most IMPORTANT job or 'responsibility' OUR government has" and I'm telling you that you will find your answer in the Constitution. (Hint: Your question may be flawed).
    My question was designed specifically to trap you.. and it has accomplished that..
    Its obvious..

    Oh and that question wasnt designed by "liberals".. it was designed by constitutionalists.........

    Go ahead.. keep painting with your obvious paint brush and using that old tired script instead of actually "thinking".. That's what folks of your ilk do..regardless of 'party' affiliation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 10:48 PM GMT
    I tend to agree that Obama is playing the long game regarding DADT. He has got the Secretary of Defence and most of the Joint Chiefs on board. The price for that is the DoD review, which will report early December and will almost certainly recommend the lifting of DADT.

    It is far from an ideal situation, but the armed forces are a very conservative institution and changing them from an organisation in which gay bashing is virtually encouraged, to one that embraces gay servicemen and women is a tricky act to pull off.

    As happened in the UK armed forces, once the ban is lifted and the initial fuss has died down, no one will really give a flying f**k. It is, none the less, an important issue of freedom and equality and the current hiatus regarding gay service personnel is sadly making the US look like a rather backward nation.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Oct 14, 2010 10:49 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said

    Nah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with.
    Oh really? Name the most IMPORTANT job or 'responsibility' OUR government has.

    be careful this might bite ya in the ass..


    You didn't ask me but I'll put my two cents in. To me here is the order I put in as important issues to me for the government:

    1.) Jobs/economy
    2.) National Security
    3.) Deficit
    4.) Education
    5.) Immigration
    6.) Gay Rights

    Now this is not say that I don't push for gay rights as much as I can but at this moment I hold my government responsible for providing me with the top 3 things first and foremost. I have said before and I will say it again: Equal Rights Will Be Won By The People, Not The Gov't! Look at the most important civil rights fights in history and they were won by influential citizens banding together to fight for these rights! The gov't has shown it is not a top priority at this time. What they can easily influence at this time are things like jobs,economy, and national security. Just my opinion but I rather them fix those things first since we have already seen that this congress cannot try and take on too many agendas at one time.Let us keep fighting the fight and changing the minds of the masses, cause let's not fool ourselves that this Country is more pro gay rights than not. Not yet
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
    The Justice Department is required by law to appeal challenges to law, right or wrong. Any of you strict Constitutionalists want to comment on that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
    It's called CYA (cover your ass).
    I think if the Justice Department didn't challenge it, the Republicans would have a field day with the electorate...especially McCain who wants that study done so badly before he votes on the military budget.
    The elections need to be over before any drastic changes are made...any major disaster (like a gay bashing by straight troops or unnecessary casualties of war in Afghanistan, e.g. gay soldiers kidnapped by Taliban) would be squarely blamed on Democratic activism.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/air-force-dadt-enforcemen_n_763192.htmlDefense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in Europe that repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be considered only after the Pentagon completes a study of the impact of lifting the ban, including an assessment of service members' attitudes toward the change. The study is due Dec. 1.

    Allowing gays to serve openly "is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates said. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Oct 14, 2010 11:30 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidThe Justice Department is required by law to appeal challenges to law, right or wrong. Any of you strict Constitutionalists want to comment on that?


    You will not find anything regarding the DOJ in the Constitution, it is the creation of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    That said, the DOJ (and any other department) are semi-autonomous and do have the authority to act, or not, at their own discretion to carry out their responsibility within the scope of their department. But, the President can issue orders and fire them for failing to comply. They technically don't have to appeal challenges to US law, but depending on circumstances, they could catch hell for not doing it.
  • nv7_

    Posts: 1453

    Oct 14, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    So confusing...
    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/14/obama-i-believe-homosexuality-isnt-a-choice/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:35 PM GMT
    This is pure politics. He wants this order to come from Congress, not the courts or during the next election he'll be seen as siding with the "liberal court system". He can't win but yeah it's shitty for him to be two-faced like this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:36 PM GMT
    aunty_jack saidAt least the Republicans are transparent on their views on homosexual issues you know where you stand with them...

    Exactly! They stand against gays! How clear does one have to make this? Republicans campaign against gays, while Democrat support is wishy-washy. Well, that's an easy choice -- step into the path of the homophobe bus, why doncha ya?

    But then you aren't a US citizen anyway, meddling in our politics. You have no credibility here -- begone, before someone drops a kangaroo on you. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:47 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThe difference is, you and many other gays believe that if Republicans gain control (once again) of the government, gays will be sent to concentration camps, and the few lucky ones who are not, will be made to sit in the back of the bus.


    They will probably continue to be summarily dismissed from the armed forces, which ain't much better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 14, 2010 11:54 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidNah, but you just can't grasp that there are more important things out there that the Federal government should be dealing with. It's, first and foremost with you and most of the others on here, "gay issues" and who cares if the country goes bankrupt in the meantime.

    Wrong -- lots of us here grasped the danger of the US facing economic meltdown during the Bush Administration, and it was YOU, and other Republicans, who denied it was happening. PLUS, the Bushies were anti-gay, so that was a done-deal for us gays in deciding who to support, and who to oppose.

    Your claim that only the Republicans offer an economic resolution, from the very problems they created in the first place, would be laughable, if it weren't so insulting to our intelligence. And to our memories, as you right-wing guys continue to rewrite history even faster than it happens.

    But even if I did belief your false assertions, here's the ultimate flaw in your argument: that gays should sacrifice our civil rights to financially benefit others. Even if it were true that Republicans will bring riches to all (which they haven't and won't, only the elite seeing any advantage), a fundamental principle of democracy is that we each get to vote in our own best interest, in the way we see it, with the majority outcome the result of this process. And with the courts and our Constitution the ultimate protection against the absolute rule of the simple majority (aka "judicial activism" as Republicans term it unless the court ruling favors them).

    I don't recall hearing any prominent Republicans saying they would sacrifice any of THEIR advantages or rights to give ME the same civil rights that they have. Why should *I* disadvantage myself, sacrifice my interests, in favor of theirs?

    A nice deal you offer -- put our own interests aside, so others may further marginalize us, while they make more money for themselves. Hey, they do say gays tend to behave as victims, so I guess you got us pegged, alright. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2010 12:07 AM GMT
    Mil8 said
    southbeach1500 saidThe difference is, you and many other gays believe that if Republicans gain control (once again) of the government, gays will be sent to concentration camps, and the few lucky ones who are not, will be made to sit in the back of the bus.

    They will probably continue to be summarily dismissed from the armed forces, which ain't much better.

    And continued to be denied marriage, or civil unions, or inheritance, or adoption rights, or safeguards against job firings, rental evictions, hate crimes, and a thousand other ways we gays are discriminated against.

    But hey, the Wall Streeters will make some more money if the Republicans return to power, so let's all do our part you gays, and vote the Republican ticket! It's our patriotic duty, you know, for us gays to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good. Just forget about civil rights & equality, that's bad for business, just a selfish notion we need to put behind us, as southbeach tells us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2010 12:14 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said I don't recall hearing any prominent Republicans saying they would sacrifice any of THEIR advantages or rights to give ME the same civil rights that they have. Why should *I* disadvantage myself, sacrifice my interests, in favor of theirs?

    Lest we forget, the DADT lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 15, 2010 12:18 AM GMT
    TexDef07 said
    Art_Deco said I don't recall hearing any prominent Republicans saying they would sacrifice any of THEIR advantages or rights to give ME the same civil rights that they have. Why should *I* disadvantage myself, sacrifice my interests, in favor of theirs?

    Lest we forget, the DADT lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans.

    Lest we forget, DADT repeal was brought by the Democrats in the last military appropriation bill. We're all in this together. And, if you check the Republican party's platform, gay rights are in opposition to LCR's platform.