Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Federal judge: Don't Ask, Don't tell is unconstitutional. Fuckface Obama will appeal

  1. #1
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM

    Thumbs up Federal judge: Don't Ask, Don't tell is unconstitutional. Fuckface Obama will appeal

    The judge in the Log Cabin Republican's case against Don't Ask, Don't Tell has issued her ruling. DADT is unconstitutional:

    A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

    U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

    Phillips issued an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.

    Have to offer congrats to LCR. Wow.

    And, is Obama's DOJ, which lost this case, really going to appeal this ruling? Really.

    Get this law off the books. It's not only discriminatory. It's unconstitutional.

    UPDATE: The Judge ruled that DADT violates the First and Fifth amendments and the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction "barring its enforcement." LCR has seven days to submit a "Proposed Judgment." The DOJ will have seven days to submit its objections to that. Here's an idea for Obama's DOJ (maybe the DOJ's so-called LGBT liaison Matt Nosanchuk can shop it around): Don't object to the proposed judgment. Don't ask for a stay of the judgment or the injunction. And don't appeal this decision. Let DADT die.)

    UPDATE 2: Here's the statement from Servicemembers United's Executive Director Alex Nicholson, one of the parties in the case:

    "This is a historic moment and an historic ruling for the gay military community," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and a multi-lingual U.S. Army interrogator who was discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' "As the only named injured party in this case, I am exceedingly proud to have been able to represent all who have been impacted and had their lives ruined by this blatantly unconstitutional policy. We are finally on our way to vindication."

    Thank you, Alex Nicholson.

    UPDATE 3: Statements from LCR and its lawyer:

    R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans & Liberty Education Forum

    "As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don't Ask Don't Tell statute violates the Constitution. Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican servicemembers, but all American servicemembers."

    Dan Woods, White & Case partner who led the matter for Log Cabin Republicans

    “We are delighted with the court's ruling in favor of Log Cabin Republicans in this important case. The court's opinion finds that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unconstitutional, and the court will issue a permanent injunction preventing the government from further enforcement of this unconstitutional statute. This is a major victory in the fight for equality and means that military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation."

    AMERICAblog Gay: BREAKING: Judge rules DADT is unconstitutional
    I'm amazed the Log Cabin republicans did something right.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #2
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006


    What is next for the military ban on gays?

    What is next for the military ban on gays? | The Upshot Yahoo! News - Yahoo! News

    On Thursday, a U.S. District Court judge in California struck down the military's ban on openly gay service members, ruling that the policy violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights guaranteeing free speech and due process under the law.

    Awkwardly enough, the defendant in the case is the Obama administration's Justice Department, even though the president publicly supports a repeal of the policy.

    But Obama has said he wants Congress to legislate the repeal, and wants the Defense Department to have enough time to review how best to implement the new policy. (Read more about the Pentagon's survey about openly gay service members here.)

    More than 13,500 people have been discharged from the military under the ban since 1994.

    The government lawyers presented no witnesses or evidence, arguing that it was a political debate and should be decided by Congress. They also argued that some of the plaintiffs were not dues-paying members of the group that brought the case, which raised in their view the issue of whether the named plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit. The judge, Virginia A. Phillips of Riverside, Calif., rejected that argument. Now the Justice Department lawyers have until Sept. 16 to submit a request for an injunction of the decision, which Phillips would probably grant if they pursue an appeal.

    So will the Justice Department appeal the judge's decision?

    No one knows for certain, and the DOJ says it's still reviewing the case. But a legal appeal would be consistent with Obama's remarks about letting Congress decide the policy. If Phillips' decision stands and the policy no longer exists in two weeks, the Pentagon would have to rush its timeline for assessment and implementation.

    The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay advocacy group, brought the suit in 2004 on behalf of six servicemen who had been discharged from the military. Log Cabin President Clarke Cooper tells The Upshot that he assumes the defendants will appeal the decision, and that it may eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

    His lawyer sounds less sure.

    "It'll be an interesting decision for our president to decide whether to appeal this case. He's said that 'don't ask, don't tell' weakens national security, and now it's been declared unconstitutional," the plaintiffs' lawyer Dan Woods told the AP. "If he does appeal, we're going to fight like heck."

    What about Congress?

    The Senate is looking to take up the "don't ask, don't tell" ban (which is tucked into the yearly defense reauthorization legislation) as soon as Sept. 20, reports the Washington Blade.

    "If Congress completes action on the defense bill, that could very easily mitigate or make moot the case," Cooper said.

    So why take it to the courts in the first place?

    Just in case the legislative deal in Congress falls apart, Cooper says. "We have been very tenacious, like a bull terrier, about having a three-theater approach on this issue," said Cooper, an Army Reserve officer. "We've covered every branch of government on this. We've been consulting with Department of Defense on implementation of repeal, lobbying Congress, and our court case. We've covered it all."

    Opponents say that the courts shouldn't be the venue for a policy debate, and that Phillips' ruling constitutes an extension "judicial activism" -- i.e., courts going over the heads of legislators to act as the de facto arbiters of social policy. "It is hard to believe that a District Court-level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told the New York Times.

    Both Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress in February that the ban on openly gay service should be repealed.

    What's the bigger picture?

    This decision, along with the decisions of Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down Prop. 8 in California and of a Massachusetts judge reversing the federal ban on same-sex marriage, shows a growing consensus among federal judges that laws singling out homosexuals for discriminatory treatment don't pass constitutional muster, the Times speculates. One test of how far that consensus stretches will be the pending challenge to the Prop. 8 ruling, which is expected to go to the Supreme Court.

  3. #3
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007


    Obama won't appeal, he's a huge supporter and defender of all basic human rights for gays. Or some such bullshit. He said something like that during the campaign, change or something, it's hard to remember now.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; September 11th, 2010 at 06:37 AM.

    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.

    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Federal Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in California
    By sluce in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: August 7th, 2010, 04:05 PM
  2. Federal Judge Blocks Alaska's Wolf-Kill Plan
    By WhoAmI in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 12:27 PM
  3. Federal Judge: Sarah Palin used her child (Trig) as a `prop'
    By Fluffy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 28th, 2007, 08:24 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 02:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts