US Supreme Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

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

    Jun 08, 2009 2:38 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 08, 2009 2:47 PM GMT
    Lemme guess ....... a 5 - 4 decision?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 3:01 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLemme guess ....... a 5 - 4 decision?

    Since this was not an Opinion, but a rejection to consider the case, so far apparently without comment, I'm not sure we'll know the breakout among the Justices.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 3:08 PM GMT
    As more of this breaking story at the link above is being developed, I note this new addition:

    "In court papers, the [Obama] administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that 'don't ask, don't tell' is 'rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.'"

    Now I had hoped that Obama would move to eliminate DADT & DOMA when it was politically feasible to do so. But I was unaware of the administration's filing in this case, quoted above. They could have remained silent on the case, but chose to support DADT before the Court. This does not bode well for Obama being supportive on gay rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 3:38 PM GMT
    More update to the story above:

    "Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military."

    I am becoming disenchanted with Obama on gay issues.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 08, 2009 4:41 PM GMT
    I starting to see a bait and switch going on here .....

    saying one thing out on the campaign trail and turning into something completely different after he's been elected
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 4:49 PM GMT
    GQjock saidI starting to see a bait and switch going on here .....

    saying one thing out on the campaign trail and turning into something completely different after he's been elected

    If that's the case, the anger of the GLBT community may become worse than it was against George Bush, because of the betrayal. I think Obama needs to do something quickly to demonstrate his commitment to gay rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 5:08 PM GMT
    En masse, very publicly and with minimum hysteria, get the GLBT community to stop paying taxes until you are treated like full citizens by the federal government.

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

    Jun 08, 2009 5:25 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidEn masse, very publicly and with minimum hysteria, get the GLBT community to stop paying taxes until you are treated like full citizens by the federal government.



    They'd just deport them all to Canada. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 5:37 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    If that's the case, the anger of the GLBT community may become worse than it was against George Bush, because of the betrayal. I think Obama need to do something quickly to demonstrate his commitment to gay rights.


    Such as completely reverse his filing to the court and his firing of gay soldiers? Total reversal of his stand on this issue?

    No, he could have at least been silent if he had any commitment to us AT ALL. To do this means he's actually behind the country on this, not leading. This isn't even middle of the road, this is bucking traffic.

    For us to have any faith in him now he would have to fire the people in "the administration" who did expressed these official opinions, otherwise it would be like we're taking back an ex who says he's changed, despite exhibiting the exact same behavior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 5:37 PM GMT
    Sedative said
    Lostboy saidEn masse, very publicly and with minimum hysteria, get the GLBT community to stop paying taxes until you are treated like full citizens by the federal government.



    They'd just deport them all to Canada. icon_confused.gif


    Really? I am going to stop paying my taxes immediately then! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 5:47 PM GMT
    This is in The Washington Post....

    "The case, Pietrangelo v. Gates, was filed by James E. Pietrangelo II, a former Army captain who was discharged from the military for being gay. He was originally part of a group of 12 plaintiffs who were dismissed under the policy because of their sexual orientation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston rejected their suit last year.

    Pietrangelo appealed to the Supreme Court on his own, while most of the other plaintiffs asked the court to not to review the case, preferring to allow the administration to deal with the issue.

    Their position was supported by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit group that helps military personnel affected by "don't ask, don't tell." It said another case that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco was a better vehicle to bring the issue before the Supreme Court.
    [Emphasis added]

    In the 9th Circuit case, former Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, a decorated flight nurse, was allowed to pursue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The appeals court did not declare the "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional but said the Air Force must prove that discharging her advanced its goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion. The court took into consideration a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down bans on sodomy in Texas and a dozen other states, ruling that consenting adults have a right to engage in private homosexual conduct.

    In opposing Supreme Court review of the Pietrangelo case, opponents of "don't ask, don't tell" have noted that Obama pledged during his presidential election campaign to end the policy. They say he appears to proceeding carefully to end the ban by first asking the Pentagon to study the implications and report its recommendations."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?hpid=topnews
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 6:17 PM GMT
    Lysander saidNo, he could have at least been silent if he had any commitment to us AT ALL. To do this means he's actually behind the country on this, not leading. This isn't even middle of the road, this is bucking traffic.

    For us to have any faith in him now he would have to fire the people in "the administration" who did expressed these official opinions, otherwise it would be like we're taking back an ex who says he's changed, despite exhibiting the exact same behavior.

    I'm beginning to form this opinion myself. Time is running out on Obama to demonstrate his commitment to gay rights. Either he supports us or he supports the status quo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 7:24 PM GMT
    It's yet another unconscionable reversal of Mr. Change's promises. The list gets longer every day. This feels a lot like when Bill Clinton backed down on his promise and the result was don't ask/don't tell.

    All Obama needs to do is make a phone call to suspend firing soldiers.

    I knew he was going to turn out to be untrustworthy when he reversed himself on FISA before becoming president. Ever since, he's done everything he can to protect Bush administration officials from prosecution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 7:42 PM GMT
    Military wants more time before gay ban ends
    Obama commits to reversing Clinton-era policy of 'don't ask, don't tell'


    WASHINGTON - The Pentagon wants more time before the ban on gays serving openly in the military is reversed.

    A senior military official said that while President Barack Obama has been clear that he wants to repeal the Clinton-era policy of "don't ask, don't tell," there is no specific timeline to do it. The official says that leaves room that the military wants to use to make sure the eventual change goes well.

    The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the Pentagon has not begun formal planning for the repeal. There is a concern the repeal could set off a polarizing debate, an official said. And that, the official said, runs the risk of placing an overstretched fighting force in the middle of a divisive policy fight.

    Still, the official said the military expects the ban eventually will be repealed.

    Recent polls indicate the ban and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are losing support.

    © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30888597/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 7:50 PM GMT
    ErikTaurean saidRecent polls indicate the ban and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are losing support.


    Well, now there is an understatement. Over 60% of Republicans and Conservatives support letting gays serve in the military. Over 80% of Democrats approve.

    So, the real question is, who will do all this debating on this divisive issue that a plurality of people of all political identifications support?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 9:03 PM GMT
    Doesnt that Washington Post article indicate that the Obama Administration thinks that this isnt the best case to bring before the Supreme Court and that there is another one on its heels that will be a better case? Therefore, his administration is playing this more strategically and not letting itself be rushed to failure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2009 9:06 PM GMT
    You are exactly right, Caslon. The article does say that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2009 2:10 AM GMT
    Again: Obama is in complete freedom to suspend firings under Don't Ask/Don't Tell. He does not need the permission of Congress to do that. It's all well and good that he supports legislation to reverse DADT. In the meantime, he can stop the ruin of many solders' careers with one phone call. And he's too fucking cowardly to do it. He's simply passing the buck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2009 2:25 AM GMT
    Lostboy saidEn masse, very publicly and with minimum hysteria, get the GLBT community to stop paying taxes until you are treated like full citizens by the federal government.



    Damn if I don't agree with that one. Don't let me down when I stop sending checks guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2009 2:32 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    GQjock saidLemme guess ....... a 5 - 4 decision?

    Since this was not an Opinion, but a rejection to consider the case, so far apparently without comment, I'm not sure we'll know the breakout among the Justices.


    It takes at least four justices to be in favor of hearing a case for it to be considered. Here's something I found on the PBS website:

    Under the so-called "Rule of Four," at least four justices must vote to hear the case for it to move on to the docket. The most junior justice takes handwritten notes that will go on to produce the public announcement of the court's order on the petition.

    Justices who disagree with a majority decision to reject a case can issue a statement expressing their viewpoint, called a "Term Opinion Relating to Orders."


    I haven't heard of any of the justices issuing such a statement in this case so its possible none of them were in favor of hearing it.
  • dannyboy1101

    Posts: 977

    Jun 09, 2009 2:33 AM GMT
    Sedative said
    Lostboy saidEn masse, very publicly and with minimum hysteria, get the GLBT community to stop paying taxes until you are treated like full citizens by the federal government.



    They'd just deport them all to Canada. icon_confused.gif


    Sign me up... Those Canadian men look mighty nice! icon_smile.gif
  • Latenight30

    Posts: 1525

    Jun 09, 2009 2:36 AM GMT
    more of a general statment but this is a topic that it fits into.
    Check out Escape To Canada. It's a very intersting look at the years of 2002 to 2004 in Canada and how they changed laws back and forth and the influence of America on them.
    Obama is just another president who uses us to get into the door.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 09, 2009 3:07 AM GMT
    I say, if Obama does throw us under the bus, as it seems he will, we should all vote Rep. in 4 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 09, 2009 3:28 AM GMT
    dyersburg_dude saidI say, if Obama does throw us under the bus, as it seems he will, we should all vote Rep. in 4 years.

    The problem with that is the Republicans are 100 times worse regarding gays. What good would that do us? That's why the Dems in the past have been only fair-weather friends to gays. They know they're the only game in town, and can ignore us when they want.

    I suppose we could simply sit out the election, but doing that would favor the Republicans, too. I'm afraid they have us over a barrel, and they know it.