DADT Extended INDEFINITELY by Federal Appeals Court

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Nov 02, 2010 6:40 AM GMT
    DADT Extended INDEFINITELY by Federal Appeals Court


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/dont-ask-dont-tell-extended-appeals_n_777349.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 10:55 AM GMT
    Well then my dick is going to be extended indefinitely down the Federal Appeals Court's throat.
  • mynyun

    Posts: 1346

    Nov 02, 2010 10:57 AM GMT
    *cough* bull shit *cough*

    My comment isn't extended to Jake Benson. Lmao. But that is something I'd like to watch. icon_eek.gificon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 11:14 AM GMT
    This means another decade of infighting and arguing over the issue...

    From the article: "In an eight-page order, two judges said they were persuaded by the Department of Justice's argument that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' worldwide injunction against the policy "will seriously disrupt ongoing and determined efforts by the Administration to devise an orderly change"

    Yeah, that's it. They are making every effort to bring in orderly change.icon_rolleyes.gif I like that they could have just let the order stand but decided to challenge it so that they can bring in change through the politicians instead of the judges.

    I propose that they will not attempt to bring change until the new batch of politicians are sworn in. After that the Republicans (assuming they gain control of the house and/or senate) will block it. Next election the Democrats can once again show they are "pro gay" because the "tried" to bring legislation that was blocked. I suspect a decade from now we will see the continuation of "determined efforts... to devise an orderly change" and DADT can continue it's popular use as a wedge issue...

    As if to confirm my suspicions...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/28/obama-gay-marriage_n_775576.html
    It appears that the president's views on gay marriage are "evolving." Why do I get the feeling they will evolve far enough to try to bring real change just in time to be blocked by the Republicans if they get in? I really hate when people play politics with the lives of others...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 11:24 AM GMT
    thank you good for nothing obama. just fucked all over the progress made by the log cabin reps. icon_evil.gif

    and with this he killed any chance of me voting to reelect him. looking forward to cheering in front of the white house when he's kicked out in 2 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 11:31 AM GMT
    Well, this is exactly what I predicted when this story was first posted here weeks ago. Lots of premature celebration over nothing. But I got bashed for being a cold realist. The outcome of this was obvious and never in doubt, and with the new US Congress in January we'll be very lucky if we don't lose ground regarding gays in the military.

    Congressional Republicans will insert anti-gay measures into military funding bills that President Obama will not be able to veto without endangering our forces. He'll be compelled to sign them, and then Republicans will use that as proof that he doesn't support gays, to sabotage our support for him.

    Or if he resists signing, he'll be accused of undermining our troops in the field, which the general public hates. In the end we gays will get screwed. Gays legally in the US military? Not for many years to come.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 11:46 AM GMT
    The recently leaked news that preliminary feedback on the mass survey is that most service members and their families just don't care if there are gays in the military. If that's released officially with the report, that could be enough for the Senators on the fence to commit to a vote in favor of repeal this year. Even though equality shouldn't have to wait, that's the way those in Congress want it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:13 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidWell, this is exactly what I predicted when this story was first posted here weeks ago. Lots of premature celebration over nothing. But I got bashed for being a cold realist. The outcome of this was obvious and never in doubt, and with the new US Congress in January we'll be very lucky if we don't lose ground regarding gays in the military.

    Congressional Republicans will insert anti-gay measures into military funding bills that President Obama will not be able to veto without endangering our forces. He'll be compelled to sign them, and then Republicans will use that as proof that he doesn't support gays, to sabotage our support for him.



    seriously just shut the fuck up. you're annoying as hell.

    if obama wouldn't go through with the appeal the district court decision would have been the law.
    if you don't understand that you're not a cold realist but just fucking stupid.

    The only reason why this may have to go to Congress is because of obama's appeal. That's why the log cabins sued...because congress will not do shit so the courts must be used.

    Seriously, instead of trolling online all day go to the nearest community college in your town and sign up for an adult continuing education remedial civics 101 course. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Little_Spoon

    Posts: 1562

    Nov 02, 2010 12:15 PM GMT
    They should seriously think about passing DGAF.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:15 PM GMT
    I'm amused by the guys who make nasty posts then go and delete/hide their profiles. Like MarineBoi1 above. Could you possibly be any more of a coward????


  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 02, 2010 12:28 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidWell, this is exactly what I predicted when this story was first posted here weeks ago. Lots of premature celebration over nothing. But I got bashed for being a cold realist. The outcome of this was obvious and never in doubt, and with the new US Congress in January we'll be very lucky if we don't lose ground regarding gays in the military.

    Congressional Republicans will insert anti-gay measures into military funding bills that President Obama will not be able to veto without endangering our forces. He'll be compelled to sign them, and then Republicans will use that as proof that he doesn't support gays, to sabotage our support for him.

    Or if he resists signing, he'll be accused of undermining our troops in the field, which the general public hates. In the end we gays will get screwed. Gays legally in the US military? Not for many years to come.



    That made absolutely no sense. Amidst all the "premature celebration over nothing" when the injunction against DADT was ruled, you said that the Obama Administration would have to appeal the decision in order to do its job in defending the law.

    Now you're suggesting that Obama is playing necessary political football with Republicans and that the Republicans are going to create some kind of political tactic that compromises part of the President's political support.


    WHAT?!!!! You're saying that Obama is appealing the decision in order to look bad later on gay and military issues????!!!! LMAO-sarcastically!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:30 PM GMT
    marineboi1 saidseriously just shut the fuck up. you're annoying as hell.

    Not as annoying as a hidden member with no profile here. And who's wrong on every point he lamely tries to make.

    The most obvious being that what I said has nothing to do with Log Cabin Republicans, or the courts. It has to do with Congressional legislation to reinforce DADT & DOMA, not eliminate them. As with most Republican supporters here you falsely accuse someone of a position they never stated, then attack them for it.

    But that's OK. I know when anonymous guys like you become violently abusive & personally offensive online that I've hit the mark. Instead of being concerned with your criticism, I consider it a confirmation of my correctness. Thank you. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:35 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidWHAT?!!!! You're saying that Obama is appealing the decision in order to look bad later on gay and military issues????!!!! LMAO-sarcastically!

    I wasn't aware I had made such statements about the Obama DOJ appealing the decision, except perhaps as a necessary reflexive procedural act. Please quote what I said to which you are referring. And you have totally distorted what I wrote above. My concern is over the new Congress, not Obama per se, and what he may have to accept as a political reality in order to get needed legislation passed, that will work against gays.

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

    Nov 02, 2010 12:36 PM GMT
    We'll, according to the Chief of Staff of my congressman, this is all gonna be repealed in the lameduck congress in December. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:38 PM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidWe'll, according to the Chief of Staff of my congressman, this is all gonna be repealed in the lameduck congress in December. icon_rolleyes.gif

    What's gonna be repealed?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 02, 2010 12:39 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    coolarmydude saidWHAT?!!!! You're saying that Obama is appealing the decision in order to look bad later on gay and military issues????!!!! LMAO-sarcastically!

    I wasn't aware I had made such statements about the Obama DOJ appealing the decision, except perhaps as a necessary reflexive procedural act. Please quote what I said to which you are referring. And you have totally distorted what I wrote above. My concern is over the new Congress, not Obama per se, and what he may have to accept as a political reality in order to get needed legislation passed.




    Why is everyone so concerned about the new Congress? Wouldn't it have been wiser to wait until tomorrow to file the appeal, and not a few days after the injunction?

    And about what you said:

    Congressional Republicans will insert anti-gay measures into military funding bills that President Obama will not be able to veto without endangering our forces. He'll be compelled to sign them, and then Republicans will use that as proof that he doesn't support gays, to sabotage our support for him.

    If this is the reality, then it's even more crucial to wait until today's election before doing anything about it. Your comment suggests that the appeal leaves room for Republicans to play politics on the issue and possibly sabotage progress on repealing DADT. Now how was it prudent to be so quick to appeal the DADT injunction to begin with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:45 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Not as annoying as a hidden member with no profile here. And who's wrong on every point he lamely tries to make.

    The most obvious being that what I said has nothing to do with Log Cabin Republicans, or the courts. It has to do with Congressional legislation to reinforce DADT & DOMA, not eliminate them. As with most Republican supporters here you falsely accuse someone of a position they never stated, then attack them for it.




    Liar.

    Also, this has everything to do with the courts. Even my grandfather knows that and he's just as old as you are (granted, he's much smarter and doesn't spend all his day in front of a computer). The only reason why this may have to be decided by congress is because of obama's appeal to reverse the LCR lawsuit.

    and what world do you live in? where is this congressional legislation being introduced to reinforce dadt and doma? i'll go flying to register for classes at that community college if i were you.


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

    Nov 02, 2010 12:46 PM GMT
    god bless america....no seriously, bless it, it needs it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 12:53 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidWhy is everyone so concerned about the new Congress? Wouldn't it have been wiser to wait until tomorrow to file the appeal, and not a few days after the injunction?

    And about what you said:

    Congressional Republicans will insert anti-gay measures into military funding bills that President Obama will not be able to veto without endangering our forces. He'll be compelled to sign them, and then Republicans will use that as proof that he doesn't support gays, to sabotage our support for him.

    If this is the reality, then it's even more crucial to wait until today's election before doing anything about it. Your comment suggests that the appeal leaves room for Republicans to play politics on the issue and possibly sabotage progress on repealing DADT. Now how was it prudent to be so quick to appeal the DADT injunction to begin with?

    I don't know who "everyone" is. I've expressed a concern regarding the new Republican Congress passing anti-gay measures, contained in necessary funding bills, that will, among other things, reinforce DOMA & DADT. Republican candidates and their national platform have been in favor of such legislation.

    The court appeal of DADT is a separate issue. Perhaps that is what is confusing you. The US District Court decision overturning DADT will be defeated in the Supreme Court, if the case gets that far. Or another rather ironic outcome would be that the Court does overturn Clinton's DADT order, returning the military to the stringent anti-gay provisions of USC 10 and the UCMJ. DADT was a smoke & mirrors Executive Order trick to get around Code 10, but it still exists as the basic law, which no President can rescind on his own.

    Gays cannot serve openly in the military while USC 10 remains as written, a fact largely overlooked. Great if the Court overturns it, too, but there is a danger here we will go backwards, and with this present Supreme Court I wonder.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 02, 2010 12:58 PM GMT
    But you haven't answered my question.

    Why did the administration act so quickly to appeal the decision? He already guarantees that Congress will repeal the law. He could know better who he's dealing with after today's election. The appeal seems to be a moot point if the Democrats maintain control of both houses. So why not wait and see?
  • Bunjamon

    Posts: 3161

    Nov 02, 2010 1:08 PM GMT
    marineboi1 said
    and with this he killed any chance of me voting to reelect him. looking forward to cheering in front of the white house when he's kicked out in 2 years.


    Are you kidding me? You think Sarah Palin and the Republican goons are going to do more for gay rights? You're crazy.

    Obama has done a lot of good things, too. I'd vote for him over the crazy Teabagging republican fuckwits any day. Look at the bigger picture, please. icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 1:11 PM GMT
    marineboi1 saidAlso, this has everything to do with the courts. Even my grandfather knows that and he's just as old as you are (granted, he's much smarter and doesn't spend all his day in front of a computer). The only reason why this may have to be decided by congress is because of obama's appeal to reverse the LCR lawsuit.

    and what world do you live in? where is this congressional legislation being introduced to reinforce dadt and doma? i'll go flying to register for classes at that community college if i were you.

    When someone is this ignorant of the US Constitution and how our government & courts work there's not a lot more I can do. When I was a college professor, and also a senior high school teacher of history and political science, I would have simply flunked you.

    And when I was the university's Assistant Registrar I likely would have rejected your transfer credits from whatever podunk community college you took your own classes.

    But for the reading-comprehension impaired, I will state yet again: I EXPECT, and PREDICT, because it can't have happened YET, that the new Republican Congress will pass anti-gay legislation contained in spending bills, and other essential acts, that President Obama will be compelled to sign into law. And when that happens in 2011, I wonder if you'll be man enough to offer me an apology for this personal abuse?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 1:15 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said

    The US District Court decision overturning DADT will be defeated in the Supreme Court, if the case gets that far. Or another rather ironic outcome would be that the Court does overturn Clinton's DADT order, returning the military to the stringent anti-gay provisions of USC 10 and the UCMJ. DADT was a smoke & mirrors Executive Order trick to get around Code 10, but it still exists as the basic law, which no President can rescind on his own.




    with every post you make, the case for signing you up for civics 101 is reinforced. the case would never make it to the supreme court if obama wouldn't appeal. that's basic stuff you learn at civics class.
    and for soemone who claims to be former military (i think you said that in another dadt thread), you sure don't know squat about the USC. There is no 10 usc or code 10. if you're gonna quote wikipedia at least do it right. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell[/url]
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 02, 2010 1:17 PM GMT
    Actually, you got that one wrong, marineboi1. If Obama didn't appeal it, anyone else could have brought the matter up in court, all over again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 1:21 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidBut you haven't answered my question.

    Why did the administration act so quickly to appeal the decision? He already guarantees that Congress will repeal the law. He could know better who he's dealing with after today's election. The appeal seems to be a moot point if the Democrats maintain control of both houses. So why not wait and see?

    I honestly don't know about the timing. The President is actually supposed to take a largely hands-off approach to the DOJ, making the key appointments, but not getting involved with its legal operations. That's where Richard Nixon got into deep trouble, and George Bush should have, had the Republicans in Congress not rallied together to protect him.

    I don't know if the DOJ was working under an appeal timeline. Or if the WH did have some influence on the decision, that it wasn't a political decision on election eve, to satisfy the greatest number of swing voters, who are not gay-friendly.

    And I don't understand your statement that "He already guarantees that Congress will repeal the law." The Senate defeated a bill a few months ago to allow gays in the military, every single Republican Senator voting against it. And as I wrote above, after today's election such a passage will be impossible for years to come.