Justice Department Opposes Gay Veterans’ Request On Procedural Grounds

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Jul 19, 2013 6:23 AM GMT
    Justice Department Opposes Gay Veterans’ Request On Procedural Grounds

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-opposes-gay-veterans-request-on-procedura
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jul 19, 2013 6:13 PM GMT
    How nice. Obama really supports equal rights for gays. Yeah, right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 10:32 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidHow nice. Obama really supports equal rights for gays. Yeah, right.


    Did you even bother reading the article? The DOJ's objections were based on technical legal issues.

    An attorney for the plaintiffs said, We appreciate that DOJ has agreed with us that each of the statutory provisions we challenged is unconstitutional, and are working with DOJ lawyers to find a solution that will provide our Plaintiffs with all the benefits they would have received if their application for benefits had not been unconstitutionally denied.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    Suetonius saidHow nice. Obama really supports equal rights for gays. Yeah, right.


    HM Queen Elizabeth II, has done more for gay rights than Obama ever has. But then she does not have to lie about supporting gay marriage to get votes either.

    Long live Our Queen.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jul 20, 2013 3:08 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Suetonius saidHow nice. Obama really supports equal rights for gays. Yeah, right.


    Did you even bother reading the article? The DOJ's objections were based on technical legal issues.

    An attorney for the plaintiffs said, We appreciate that DOJ has agreed with us that each of the statutory provisions we challenged is unconstitutional, and are working with DOJ lawyers to find a solution that will provide our Plaintiffs with all the benefits they would have received if their application for benefits had not been unconstitutionally denied.”

    Of course I read the article. Not unlike your UK, the president here (like your PM, I believe) has plenary power over his administration. The attorney general (or the chief counsel for the veteran's administration) does not take positions contrary to policy of the administration. The government's attorneys do not have to raise "technical issues." In a case with such major policy considerations, the white house is briefed, and approves positions the government will take. If the president determines that a particular position should be taken in litigation, it will be taken, technical issues notwithstanding. If the president so determined, policy would have been adopted, and litigation would not have been necessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 9:11 AM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Of course I read the article. Not unlike your UK, the president here (like your PM, I believe) has plenary power over his administration. The attorney general (or the chief counsel for the veteran's administration) does not take positions contrary to policy of the administration. The government's attorneys do not have to raise "technical issues." In a case with such major policy considerations, the white house is briefed, and approves positions the government will take. If the president determines that a particular position should be taken in litigation, it will be taken, technical issues notwithstanding. If the president so determined, policy would have been adopted, and litigation would not have been necessary.


    Obama has nothing to do with this case in any real way and the article makes it clear the DOJ is working with the plaintiffs to correct the system.

    It's a non-story.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 3:52 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Obama has nothing to do with this case in any real way and the article makes it clear the DOJ is working with the plaintiffs to correct the system.
    It's a non-story.

    I agree, a non-story. This is just one of the many issues that are likely to arise from the DOMA decision and will need to be worked out 'technically' before decisions can be made. I'm sure there will be others that were enacted with verbiage that conflicts with the Supreme Court decision.

    How this all equates to a lack of support by the Obama administration is beyond me!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 4:14 PM GMT
    eb925guy said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Obama has nothing to do with this case in any real way and the article makes it clear the DOJ is working with the plaintiffs to correct the system.
    It's a non-story.

    I agree, a non-story. This is just one of the many issues that are likely to arise from the DOMA decision and will need to be worked out 'technically' before decisions can be made. I'm sure there will be others that were enacted with verbiage that conflicts with the Supreme Court decision.

    How this all equates to a lack of support by the Obama administration is beyond me!


    FYI, Holder took away your right to vote in 2009.