Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 15, 2010
Homo Obama Must Try Upholding DADT in Court
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Walter Dellinger, the former solicitor general for President Clinton, last night told Rachel Maddow why the Obama administration has to appeal the ruling that found DADT was unconstitutional:
An excellent point—you don't want one federal judge overturning policy for the country simply because the administration du jour liked a particular ruling and failed to challenge it. It still doesn't qualify Obama as a "fierce advocate," but fair enough. This tip was from tipper I Got Nuthin, who calls this an "interesting and reasonable take on the whole fiasco." What say you, Slogosphere?
1
I say that would be great if it worked both ways. But can you really imagine a Republican president appealing a ruling that he agreed with?
2
i say number three, but i don't even consider it a minor issue. no issue at all. the best support is to enlist and encourage all young gay men and women to enlist, and quit your fake blog bitching. you embarrass the soldiers that die for you.
3
Yes the Rupuglicans have proven themselves to be ohhh so trust worthy they would never appeal a ruling… Let’s not forget that Clinton did not appeal the ban on HIV positive people serving in the military.
LGBT people are just not and will never be a political priority for our fierce advocate. He feels he has our votes and our money locked up. No doubt that is what Joe “and step on it” Solemanese and the HRC lisp in his ear.
Unfortunately the only way we are going to get the democrats attention is to withhold $ and votes. Although I will be voting for Patty Murray yet again. Unless I see some serious progress I will not vote for Obama again.
LGBT people are just not and will never be a political priority for our fierce advocate. He feels he has our votes and our money locked up. No doubt that is what Joe “and step on it” Solemanese and the HRC lisp in his ear.
Unfortunately the only way we are going to get the democrats attention is to withhold $ and votes. Although I will be voting for Patty Murray yet again. Unless I see some serious progress I will not vote for Obama again.
4
"Blogging an opinion is as admirable as the fat slob sitting in his armchair complaining about a referee's call"
- Sullivan
- Sullivan
5
@1 has it right. Obama isn't stopping a dangerous precedent, he's shooting himself, and us, in the foot. Besides, the White House didn't appeal when the ban on HIV+ people in the military was overturned by a federal judge, and country didn't explode.
7
Yeah, I agree with @3, this is total bullshit. Just because Obama appeals on some kind of alleged 'principle' doesn't mean anybody else will or won't appeal good or bad decisions later, just like his shorting health care and the recovery doesn't mean Republicans will add in social services and single payer later. What he does has no bearing on the past or future actions of others. If he wants to accomplish the repeal of DADT, failing to appeal is the most expedient way to do so, and even provides him political cover so he can cower when some right winger doesn't like what he's done. The fact that he's allowing his DOJ (which, like his DOD, he probably doesn't even control anymore) to appeal means nothing of integrity. It just means he's weak, and lies to us daily.
8
@2: not to demean the soldier's trials and sacrifice, but they are not dying for you, or for me. They are dying to prop up the Permanent War Industry.
9
This whole notion that Obama has to modulate his actions now because some day they may be used by a Republican in a nefarious way is ridiculous. Nothing in what he's doing precludes a future Republican (or Democratic) president from acting in a nefarious way.
They can't prosecute former Bush administration officials for torture because what if a future Republican tried to prosecute a Democratic president for something? So they didn't prosecute anyone... what's to stop a future Republican from prosecuting a Democrat?
Can't let the DADT ruling stand in federal court because what if a future Republican president failed to defend some other law in court? So they're appealing it. What's to stop a future Republican from not appealing a ruling that goes their way?
There's no slope here, just slippery.
They can't prosecute former Bush administration officials for torture because what if a future Republican tried to prosecute a Democratic president for something? So they didn't prosecute anyone... what's to stop a future Republican from prosecuting a Democrat?
Can't let the DADT ruling stand in federal court because what if a future Republican president failed to defend some other law in court? So they're appealing it. What's to stop a future Republican from not appealing a ruling that goes their way?
There's no slope here, just slippery.
12
A total crock of shit. That old cheerleading fool talks like Obama has said he thinks DADT is unconstitutional. Obama has never said that - he refuses to say that. His DOJ filed a paper yesterday that says as long as an argument can be made defending the constitutionality of DADT, they will make it.
In other words - the Obama administration isn't convinced that the policy is illegitimate. He is speaking out of both sides of his conniving mouth.
And the idea that a future Republican administration would resist an attack on health care reform out of some allegiance to the Obama's appeal of the DADT decision is not just laughable, it is disgusting. Anyone that buys that load of garbage is completely retarded.
In other words - the Obama administration isn't convinced that the policy is illegitimate. He is speaking out of both sides of his conniving mouth.
And the idea that a future Republican administration would resist an attack on health care reform out of some allegiance to the Obama's appeal of the DADT decision is not just laughable, it is disgusting. Anyone that buys that load of garbage is completely retarded.
13
Please note that the Obama administration is only appealing the "remedy" advised by the court. In the administration's appeal, it says that it agrees with the judge's findings. In other words, the end-result is going to be that the district judge's finding will be upheld.
14
I can see the Justice Dept to making a token appeal, if that means a higher court could settle the matter against DADT once and for all.
What I absolutely don't get is why the hell DOJ would ask for an emergency stay (to resume enforcement of DADT) while that appeal is pending.
What I absolutely don't get is why the hell DOJ would ask for an emergency stay (to resume enforcement of DADT) while that appeal is pending.
15
You missed your window.
Should have pushed when I told you, but you wanted to talk about whiny babies and bulldogs instead.
Have fun living in a country with no rights.
We'll talk in 2025 when your next chance comes up.
Should have pushed when I told you, but you wanted to talk about whiny babies and bulldogs instead.
Have fun living in a country with no rights.
We'll talk in 2025 when your next chance comes up.
16
The argument is complete bull shit. Essentially we have to protect the president's power against "a single federal judge" because they are what...in some titanic clash? No one would call this "legislating from the bench" or be so eager to suck presidential power's cock if he had done the right thing and refused to defend the law in the first place, and issued the damn stop gap executive order (excuse me..."memorandum" (I forgot we're all a bunch of total nut sacks)) to boot.
17
I suppose I buy the argument that the Administration has to continue the litigation because they're responsible to defend any law on the books, regardless of what they think. But I don't understand why they can't suspend enforcement pending a final Supreme Court decision.
19
Including a homophobic slur in the third response seems like a pretty effective tactic for dissuading people from choosing that option.
20
B.S.
Obama could be challenging the decision without public comment.
He could be "fiercely" speaking out against it at every turn and asking Congress why they're abdicating their responsibility in favor of the courts that they so often rail against.
Or he could direct his DOJ to file briefs that speak ONLY to the legal merits, instead of saying completely fucked up homophobic bullshit that he supposedly disagrees with.
Obama could be challenging the decision without public comment.
He could be "fiercely" speaking out against it at every turn and asking Congress why they're abdicating their responsibility in favor of the courts that they so often rail against.
Or he could direct his DOJ to file briefs that speak ONLY to the legal merits, instead of saying completely fucked up homophobic bullshit that he supposedly disagrees with.
22
DOJ Declines To Appeal Ruling Allowing Christianists To Proselytize In Parks
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj…
yup.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj…
yup.
24
So 1,2,3,5,7, and others are basically saying that if the Republicans are going to be dishonest, venal assholes, then so should the Democrats.
Great. Advocating for a country that's 75% asshole rather than just 30%. Good job, guys.
Great. Advocating for a country that's 75% asshole rather than just 30%. Good job, guys.
25
@ 24 - Matt Yglesias has a great take on this very issue governing its top priority. Why uphold procedural consistency over helping your constituents?
27
Okay, let me try this again:
@ 24 - Matt Yglesias has a great take on this very issue right here.
Money quote: "The procedural rules are levers to be deployed on behalf of important goals, not holy writ to which policy objectives should be subordinated." In other words, this is the way things are supposed to work. The governing party should make governing its top priority. Why uphold procedural consistency over helping your constituents?
@ 24 - Matt Yglesias has a great take on this very issue right here.
Money quote: "The procedural rules are levers to be deployed on behalf of important goals, not holy writ to which policy objectives should be subordinated." In other words, this is the way things are supposed to work. The governing party should make governing its top priority. Why uphold procedural consistency over helping your constituents?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
-
Obama Administration Admits the US Has Used Drones to Kill Its Citizens by Brendan Kiley
-
Everything Wrong with Television, in One Handy Chart by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS