Will the Senate act? The Republicans pick up one seat immediately (Illinois special election).
So now what happens to DADT repeal?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||06/26/2013|
Oh, R1 is cunty AND accurate.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/03/2010|
So you don't hold Obama responsible, r1?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/03/2010|
DADT repeal is dead. Democrats are already leaking that it won't be considered this year. Marc Ambinder's column this morning:
"Democrats are already playing down the notion that they'll get much done in a lame duck session. Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Don't even bother."
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/03/2010|
R1, I wish you'd fall in a hole today. Not a deep one, just enough to scrape your shin or something. Asshole.%0D %0D True answer? It gets brought up again in 2012 when Obama wants our vote. Sorry.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/03/2010|
Keep dreaming r5.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/03/2010|
For all those who blame Obama for the mess yesterday, please click on link.
It deserves it's own thread but I cannot create one.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/03/2010|
He was just asked if he now has to admit to his liberal base that he will not keep his word on DADT. His response, moreorless:%0D %0D "Needs to be done in an orderly fashion...Make sure we are looking at in a systematic way...review coming out soon...will give us time to act potentionally during lame duck session to change this policy...this should not be a partisan issue...sizeable portion of American people behind everyone being treated fairly and equally."
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/03/2010|
Hasn't Obama noticed that EVERY issue is a partisan issue for Republicans? They even reject their own ideas once he adopts them.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/03/2010|
Thank you R7- most of the people on this board are perhaps hostage to FOX and CNN and don't watch the News Hour, BBC or read the NY Times- and of course believe what the Repubs say. Never has a larger broader pack of bullshit lies been accepted as fact, well. since we went to war over WMD.%0D %0D For God's dake TARP has been almost totally repaid, with interest. He ASKED for Congress to repeal DADT- the ONLY way it can disappear.%0D %0D It will not happen until Democrats or another progressive perhaps more progressive party gets in power.%0D %0D Until then, anyone who did not vote Democrat railing away on Obama and DADT should have their fingers tied and NOT be allowed on this thread.%0D %0D Hmmph.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/03/2010|
The dems are not looking to step on that land mine right now.
What's the upside?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/03/2010|
DADT WAS GONE! %0D %0D R1 is an asshole. Obama brought the fucking thing back.%0D %0D WHY?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/03/2010|
DADT isn't dead at all. Here's why: The lame-duck session of the Senate will still consist of 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans. It's going to be considered as part of a Defense Appropriations bill. And it's going to be considered AFTER the release of a DOD "study" that will say, yeah, you can get rid of it. Repealing DADT has the support of a large majority of Americans--including a bare majority of Republican voters. Republicans are not going to want to filibuster a defense bill in order to announce that they hate gay people. And Democrats, in December, won't be worried about how this will play with their constituency--the election is over. DADT will be repealed in December.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/03/2010|
r13 I like your positive sounding approach of this matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/03/2010|
I think we're down to 58 Republicans immediately. The Illinois election was a special election.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/03/2010|
Last night on CNN they said DADT repeal is dead for the next two years at least.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/03/2010|
[quote]Hasn't Obama noticed that EVERY issue is a partisan issue for Republicans?%0D %0D No, he hasn't noticed. He's sitting there waiting for a consensus. When that happens, he'll begin to lead.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/03/2010|
We will have to leave it to a Republican president to repeal it for some reason our Democratic one can't get it done. Thanks, Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/03/2010|
[R12] Of course you see it that way, but it's not legally correct. It was not "gone" -- it was temporarily enjoined. And if he hadn't done it, this new Congress surely would have. All they would have needed was Webb, Nelson and Lieberman and one or two other scared Dems to do it, who would all invoke the same "principle" Obama did to appeal it, that a trial court can't set military policy.
Do I wish Obama hadn't done it and forced the Repugs to do it? Yes. But it would've been done.
And McCain continues to pledge to filibuster if Reid tries to bring it to the floor "lame duck". Until these final races are settled, will Reid have the balls to do it? Snowe and Collins said they were waiting until the report comes down. Well it's ready. And says the troops don't care.
Reid could do it. But he won't.
And promising to do it in 2012 again -- after Obama did NOTHING to put pressure on Collins and Snowe to overcome the filibuster and get it done?
Does he think gay people are that stupid? I'm not.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/03/2010|
It's over, boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/03/2010|
>>>For God's dake TARP has been almost totally repaid, with interest. He ASKED for Congress to repeal DADT- the ONLY way it can disappear%0D %0D %0D %0D Strong president's have had huge influence over congress. President Obama is not a strong president
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/03/2010|
Those of you who, screamed bloody murder that the Democrats had not ended DADT, have gotten what you asked for. You are rid of the Democrats who treated you so badly. Congratulations.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/03/2010|
Obama did everything to not let it pass. He told his crew to not touch it until after 2012. That is a fact, and documented. But you keep on living in your fantasy world.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/03/2010|
r23, what the fuck are you talking about?
"Obama did everything to not let it pass."
What would that be, exactly? It was proposed in the House; he announced his support for the repeal; the repeal passed.
"He told his crew to not touch it until after 2012."
What "crew" would that be? Legislators? And if not, how would they "touch" it?
"That is a fact, and documented."
No, and no. But thanks for playing.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/03/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/03/2010|
DL posters have stated repeatedly that when the GOP took power the people of this country would 1) get what they deserve, and 2) then see the error of their ways, and 3) finally usher in a new era of light and truth.%0D %0D So how does the schedule look so far, bois?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/03/2010|
DADT will remain exactly as Obama has wanted it all along --- in full effect.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/03/2010|
Repeal was passed by the House, but McCain said he would filibuster it in the Senate. The Democrats did not have enough votes to override the filibuster. So Reid dropped repeal from the defense bill.
Obama and the Democrats tried to repeal DADT, but they were blocked by McCain and his filibuster.
Why are you all so angry at the Democrats?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/03/2010|
Because, r28, the time for repeal was more than a year ago. Where were you for the first year Obama was in office? Did you sleep through it while he sat there waiting for a consensus?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/03/2010|
R29. Obama lacks backbone. He doesn't only want consensus; he wants to have everyone overwhelmingly come to a decision that they define--and then he'll go along with their decision. Obama has screwed up any progress DADT had made.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/04/2010|
The hysterics on this thread like [R27] only make this problem worse.
There's no proof Obama "wanted" DADT. What a moronic statement.
What there IS proof of is that he sacrificed us on the altar of other agendas, took us for granted, was too afraid to take the issue on for fear it would be '93 all over again and throw his Presidency into turmoil like it did the Clintons (and was probably cowed into thinking so by the likes of Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden).
The man is not an idiot, to promise repeal and want it to stay?
You come off like a shrill hysteric. Maybe if people like you had put pressure on Obama for the first two years and made demands, he would have done something -- as apparently most of what he did for us he did after protests shamed him into it.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/04/2010|
R29, if I understand you right, you are outraged at the Democrats because they tried their best to repeal DADT the second year, rather than right away.
Is that why you are denouncing Obama with every breath?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/04/2010|
[quote]He ASKED for Congress to repeal DADT- the ONLY way it can disappear.%0D %0D DADT was effectively gone a few weeks ago until Obama appealed the ruling. The Pentagon had already ordered the recruiters to accept gay applicants. Gay people started enlisting that day. Without the Obama appeal, that policy would have gone on and on and on. More and more gay people would enlist. There are no court cases working their way through the system now to uphold DADT, so there could be no court finding in opposition to its repeal. %0D %0D The absolute earliest that the Repugs could have tried to reintroduce DADT legislation to overcome the court ruling (although they probably couldn't do it seeing that it was ruled unconstitutional and they can't knowingly pass unconstitutional laws) would have been January. So, four months of openly gay enlistments, joining those already in the military who would have been brave enough to come out, would have already been taking place by the time they could even think to bring any legislation forward.%0D %0D Since the Dems held the Senate, anything the House passed would have died there. Since Obama is still in the WH, he could have vetoed anything that magically made it through the Senate. So, now we're in January of 2013, if the Repugs win the House, the Senate and the WH before any action could have been taken to reinstate DADT.%0D %0D Meanwhile, openly gay people would have been enlisting and serving for almost two and a half years. If you think that policy would be reinstated at that time, you're nuts.%0D %0D So, yes, DADT did end a few weeks ago and Obama reinstated it. That's the complete reality of the situation. %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/04/2010|
I cannot understand the anger at the Democrats on this issue. The Republicans are the problem.
Is that too difficult to understand? It was the Republicans who blocked repeal in the Senate.
Aim your fury at the right target.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/04/2010|
R34, the Repugs sure didn't have to work very hard, now did they?%0D %0D Can you counter what I wrote at R33? There was nothing the Repugs could have done about that DADT repeal ruling a few weeks back. Nothing. The timeline I laid out is correct. The earliest they could have taken action to reinstate the ban on gays in the military would be 2013 and then only if they won the House, the Senate and the Presidency.%0D %0D DADT ended with that court ruling. Obama reinstated it.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/04/2010|
R35, do you have any idea how the branches of the government interact, and what the responsibilities of each are?
Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, when the courts block a law passed by Congress, it is the responsibility of the executive branch (the office of the President), through the Attorney General, to defend the law in a higher court. In any real sense, it is not an option to neglect to defend the law of the land.
The Court of Appeals has agreed to reinstate the law until it reaches its own judgment.
Meanwhile, the military is completing its own study of the impact of repeal, which is due before the end of the year. There is every reason to think that they will recommend repeal. At that point, opposition to repeal will melt.
Can you understand that Obama has been actively working for repeal all along?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/04/2010|
So, in other words, R36, no, you can't actually counter what I said except to throw out the same tired, debunked excuses you've been throwing out for over a year now. He is in no way required to appeal a court decision on a law he feels is unconstitutional, which he stated he believe DADT to be. %0D %0D Do you know how I know he's not obligated in any way to appeal all of these cases? I know this because he has chosen not to appeal several cases already in the last two years. They are listed in a couple other threads here and I'm sure you've already read them. %0D %0D Why don't you tell me the exact way in which the Repugs would have reinstated DADT if Obama hadn't appealed the ruling? You cannot do it because what I wrote is correct. They would not have been able to do it until 2013 at the earliest and only if they won everything. %0D %0D The DADT of the 1990s ended a few weeks ago. This is Obama's DADT now. He put it in place.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/04/2010|
[quote]He ASKED for Congress to repeal DADT- the ONLY way it can disappear.%0D %0D %0D On June 24, 2009, members of Congress asked Obama to [bold]lead the fight[/bold] for the repeal of DADT. He ignored their request. %0D %0D Of course, there's also the fact that he can't lead at all. Congress was foolish to consider him for leading anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/04/2010|
The 2010 elections and 'don't ask, don't tell'
An interesting outcome of the Republican tsunami is that two men on opposite sides of the debate over repeal of the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military went down in defeat. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the straight Iraq War vet elected in 2006, wore out the soles of his shoes working the halls of the House to secure the votes need to repeal 'don't ask don't tell.' Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House armed services committee who has been in Congress since 1977, was against lifting the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.
Like most social issues, gays in the military was not front-and-center in the 2010 midterms. Skelton told Time magazine that other than the press only one constituent asked him about his support for don't ask don't tell. In preparation for an appearance on MSNBC on Monday I asked a friend who had spent the weekend in Murphy's district helping to drum up support if the ban was an issue in the campaign. "I don't think it's much at all," he replied.
With worry over the economy and jobs the number one issue, this is not surprising. But allowing gay men and lesbians to serve their county openly was -- and remains -- a big deal for many. It is not only a moral issue -- how can we continue to demand that servicemembers lie about who they are? It is also a civil rights issue -- how can we continue to deny people the right and privilege of serving this nation because of who they are? And it's a character issue. A couple of months or so ago, the Good Men Project, a new online men's magazine that launched in June, asked me and 14 other journalists and thinkers to nominate someone for a feature on "The Top Ten Good Men Politicians." I nominated Murphy.
That the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell passed the House of Representatives is due to the tireless and strategic efforts of Rep. Patrick Murphy. The Iraq War veteran and West Point instructor worked the halls of the House for more than a year to line up the votes needed to get it done. And he did this while representing a district that is more conservative on the issue than he is. Murphy knows this could cost him his seat. But if you ask him, he'll tell you that he'd rather lose his seat because he did the right thing than to win reelection by doing nothing.
In an interview last month with the Huffington Post, Murphy said he had no regrets about picking up the banner of don't ask don't tell repeal after then Rep. Ellen Tauscher joined the State Department in 2009. "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution as an Army officer and as a congressman," he said. "I take that oath to heart, and I'm going to fight for the values that are in our Constitution. I'm going to fight to make sure that our military has the best personnel policy that it can, and that means repealing the outdated and the dangerous don't ask, don't tell policy."
Congress needs more like Murphy. Lawmakers who take on tough issues, work hard to change hearts and minds on both sides of the aisle and hunt for areas of common ground to bring about change. President Obama has pushed as much as he can from the White House to end the gay ban. But it is an act of Congress that needs another act of Congress to repeal it. That the official dismantling of don't ask don't tell is a Senate vote away is due to a good man named Patrick Murphy.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/04/2010|
"Over-reaching" is what Repugs say got him into this place. And then on top of that he had to deal with you whining babies.
Oh well. Let's see what happens now.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/04/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/04/2010|
%0D In July 2009, Congressman Alcee Hastings introduced an amendment to the military appropriations bill that would have prohibited the use of those funds for implementation of DADT -- no dollars for discharges. The White House laid down the law that this was not to be done, so Hastings under White House pressure was forced to withdraw his amendment. %0D %0D %0D This would have been a step toward ending DADT but the White House said, "NO!"%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/04/2010|
I notice the defenders of Obama's (in)actions on DADT have faded into the woodwork.%0D %0D I'd really like those of you who think he's really trying to help overturn it explain how it was going to be reinstated if Obama hadn't appealed the recent ruling that ended DADT.%0D %0D Anyone? You have to take into account that there are no pro-DADT court cases making their way through the system right now, so it would not have been overtured by another ruling. And, the Repugs in Congress wouldn't have gotten to even try to reinstate it until 2013 at the earliest.%0D %0D So, really, explain to me how Obama didn't just make DADT his own and completely screw us over. We had it won. Obama couldn't take his own advice to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. He just had to have it done his way, like a petulant child.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/04/2010|
I wasted my vote on him in the last election. That won't happen in two years. How nice it would be if the next convention would pick a leader for the Democratic candidate.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/04/2010|
R36, you and the other Obamabots are scary. We are supposed to question our leaders--it's a democracy.%0D %0D While I'll concede that the DOJ pretty much had to appeal the substance of the district court's ruling, there is absolutely nothing that required them to move to lift the injunction. Nothing. At. All. That was a specific motion filed by DOJ, demanding immediate reinstituion of DADT. That was hateful and stupid.%0D %0D The appeal would have taken at least a year, if not more. There are all kinds of ways to delay appellate litigation. In the meantime, people would have been serving openly.%0D %0D And until you go to law school, you'd be better off not mouthing stupid White House talking points. Before anyone starts, I quit my job to work for the campaign in 2008. I don't regret it, but I didn't suspend my critical thinking skills just because I worked for Obama's election.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/04/2010|
R42 - that is what the repubs are going to do with Healthcare reform. Am amendment in the budget not to fund it.%0D %0D Just watch.%0D %0D Why are democrats so timid and afraid to riock the boat?%0D %0D I would like to think it is Obama's desire for a second term, not homophonia, that led to him making that decision.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/04/2010|
[italic]it's a democracy.[/italic]
No, it's not actually.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/04/2010|
[quote] I hate republicans but they sure do have balls%0D %0D I agree. The Dems are afraid of them. The Dems don't know how to push back at Republican lies. The Dems don't know how to go on the offensive. Dems are too stupid to learn from the Republican playbook when it's right out in front for all to see.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/04/2010|
R46, I wonder how many signing statements Obama can sign to basically de-ball anything the Repugs add to the bills?
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/04/2010|
LOL @ r49. I hope you're joking because that empty suit doesn't have the guts to de-ball anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/04/2010|
Yeah, I was kind of going for being all ironical, R50.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/04/2010|
Empty suit! LOL, R50! That's a good one. Never heard that before.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/04/2010|
"I quit my job to work for the campaign in 2008"%0D %0D Feel stupid much?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/04/2010|
Okay, since no one has countered it with any facts, I will assume that I'm right about DADT having effectively been repealed by that court ruling that Obama appealed and that there could have been no action on it until 2013 at the earliest. %0D %0D I really want to know if I'm right because that's the argument I'm going to make to people I discuss this with. %0D %0D Other than some out of left field lawsuit that would have to work its way up to a federal court, there would have been nothing that could have been done if Obama had not appealed and openly gay people could have been enlisting and serving for over two years by the time DADT could be reinstated. %0D %0D Is that correct?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/05/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/05/2010|
The fact-free contingent heard from at R55. Anyone who's not presently located in the President's rectum care to answer with, you know, logic and/or facts?
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/05/2010|
The President and the Executive branch cannot choose to defend some laws passed by Congress and not others. To do so would undermine the separation of powers. The President does not have the right to defend laws he likes and skip defending those he does not like.
If presidents were able to pick and choose among the laws they would defend, in effect they would become lawmakers. The Constitution directs that only Congress can pass laws. The President cannot nullify those laws by failing to defend some.
Obama, through the Attorney General, had no choice but to defend in court DADT, no matter how he felt about it. It is his constitutional obligation.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/05/2010|
R57, you are wrong. Have you really not read any other thread on this on DL? It's been explained over and over that you are wrong and exactly why you are wrong. %0D %0D Obama has already chosen to not defend certain laws by not appealing court rulings. All presidents do. In fact, because of the oath he took to uphold the constitution, he is obligated to not fight for laws that he views to be unconstitutional. %0D %0D And, again, you are wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/05/2010|
Okay, are we in agreement then that, without the appeal, gays could have been openly serving and enlisting until 2013?%0D %0D If we take that as true, then how many of you think that, after having gays serving openly for two years, there would be even an attempt at a repeal, let alone a successful one?%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/05/2010|
Had Obama rejected his constitutional obligations and decided not to appeal the decision against DADT, you can bet you bottom dollar that that would have become a wedge issue. The Republicans would have harped on that for two years, certain that they would bring the Moral Majority out of their trailer parks again.
The Republicans would have run on reinstating DADT, and all those gay service members, who were succored into enlisting or coming out, would have been tosses out be a vindictive Republican administration.
A far better course for the President is to appeal the ruling, while waiting for the official report by the military, due in December and expected to recommend repeal of DADT. At that point Republicans could get behind repeal.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/05/2010|
[italic]Had Obama rejected his constitutional obligations and decided not to appeal the decision against DADT, you can bet you bottom dollar that that would have become a wedge issue.[/italic]
And if Obama was a real leader, he would do the right thing, and stand up to the bigots! But because he's useless, he'll back down, and hide in the corner, crying.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/05/2010|
Harry Reid is going to fuck us over again. He almost single-handedly wrecked the DADT vote before with his fucking pandering, and he's going to do it again. %0D %0D Yes, McCain will filibuster, but there are NOT 40 votes to maintain a filibuster of just DADT repeal. Snowe and Collins of Maine said on the floor they support repeal, Brown of MA would be pretty stupid to oppose repeal when he's up for re-election in 2012, and moderate Voinovich of Ohio is retiring so he can vote how he wants. But of course last time that fucking Mormon had to attach the DREAM act nonsense (amnesty for illegals) and forbade amendments, thus guaranteeing failure, just so he could pander to the brown vote in NV.%0D %0D In an interview about the lame duck, Reid basically admitted he's going to do the exact same fucking thing. Why the fuck is a Mormon from NEVADA the Majority Leader? Is there a functioning brain in the Democratic party?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/05/2010|
Please provide a link, r62. I cannot believe he would do that again. I don't want to believe it. What the hell is wrong with Dems like Reid and even Obama? They are worse than Repukes, underhanded and shameless.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/05/2010|
Republicans are very upfront about where they stand on issues.
Democrats lie about where they stand.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/05/2010|
There is so much hatred of Obama and the Democrats on this thread. You do not know who your friends are, and who are your enemies.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/05/2010|
R60, you are wrong about the constitutional obligation. I don't know why all of you keep saying it as if it's true except that it seems to be the only argument you can even come up with to defend Obama's appeal of the court ruling.%0D %0D He's the one who set December as the deadline for that report, as if there needed to be another report to begin with. DADT will not be repealed during this lame duck session or during any session in, at least, the next two years.%0D %0D And, the fact that you think the Repugs are going to line up behind the repeal makes me think you are insane. And, in case you haven't noticed, the social issues have all taken a back seat recently. It would have actually hurt the Repugs if, during this economic disaster, they amped up the anti-gay rhetoric yet again.%0D %0D So, again, absolutely zero facts are on your side. Do you actually believe that DADT will no longer be in place after this oh so sacred report comes out in December? Obama screwed us over when he didn't even have to for any kind of legal or political reason. That tells you exactly what he thinks of us.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/05/2010|
"The Republicans pick up one seat immediately (Illinois special election)."
Why should it work that way? The Senator should have to wait until January just like everyone else.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/05/2010|
R67, Roland Burris was our replacement for Obama's seat, chosen by our then governor, Rod Blagojevich (who will hopefully soon be in jail). A court recently found that instead of an appointment, there should have been a special election for some reason.%0D %0D So, Burris is out and we were forced to hold a special election for a new Senator to finish out this term, which is about a month or so in length. We had to vote twice on our ballots. Once for the person to finish out the remaining month and once for the new Senator to serve the full six year term.%0D %0D Kirk won both of those. So, he immediately takes the place of Burris and then, in January, starts his actual six year term.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/05/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/06/2010|
I can't believe that no one can put up a reasonable defense of Obama and his appeal now that it's obvious that nothing will be done on DADT. Are any of you willing to admit your mistake in believing it? Are any of you willing to take back your excuses as to why the appeal wasn't a big deal? How about apologizing to those of us who've known better since the beginning? Yeah, I didn't think so. Fierce advocate my ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/07/2010|
And if it ends "on his watch" will you apologize to us?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/07/2010|
IF it ends "on his watch" (very doubtful), then it will have ended despite Obama's attempts to delay and derail the repeal of DADT.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/07/2010|
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Congress should act quickly, before new members take their seats, to repeal the military's ban on gays serving openly in the military.%0D %0D He, however, did not sound optimistic that the current Congress would use a brief postelection session to get rid of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."%0D %0D "I would like to see the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" but I'm not sure what the prospects for that are," Gates said Saturday, as he traveled to defense and diplomatic meetings in Australia.%0D %0D Unless the lame-duck Congress acts, the repeal effort is considered dead for now.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/07/2010|
Gates has been assigned his role. He's been told to be the mouthpiece for repeal. It's all talk and nothing will be done.%0D %0D [quote]And if it ends "on his watch" will you apologize to us?%0D %0D How far can the standard drop? First it was 'during my first year'. Then, it was 'by the end of 2010, when my wonderful, useless report comes out'. Now, it's 'on his watch'. Ha. Gullible morons. %0D %0D No, I will not apologize because, guess what, DADT was already repealed and Obama reinstated it. It will not be repealed during the lame-duck session. It will not be repealed before the 2012 election. It will not be repealed before the 2014 midterms. It might, might be repealed after 2014 IF we still happen to have control of either chamber of Congress and the WH and if they think the Dem nominee can still win having passed the repeal of DADT. %0D %0D So, we can thank Obama for adding at least five years to DADT. And, I think it's going to be way more than that in the end. %0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/07/2010|
[quote]guess what, DADT was already repealed and Obama reinstated it.
Leaving the decision up to a single district court would have been an invitation to chaos. Other courts would not be bound by its decision and could rule the other way. If you are going to count on a court decision, you've got to get it up to the Appeals level at least.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/07/2010|
R75, please tell me who in this country would have standing to bring a pro-DADT court case. There are no constitutional grounds to bring one. None. %0D %0D The court repeal would have stood as the law of the land until, at least, 2013. And, let's say that by that time a court case does come around or the Repugs gain control of everything and try another end run around the Constitution to reinstate DADT. Is it better, at that point, to have had gays openly serving and enlisting for over two years or not? %0D %0D It's a constitutional matter and it was decided. There was nothing that could be done about it for years if Obama had not appealed. By the time anything could be done about it, gays would have been openly serving for long enough to make the point moot.%0D %0D We won and Obama took it away.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/07/2010|
[quote]We won and Obama took it away.%0D %0D %0D And guaranteed that I won't vote for him again. I wasted my vote on him one time. He doesn't get a second chance.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/07/2010|
R77, is your perception of what Obama has done regarding DADT the only thing that matters in your life or the country's affairs?
I would suggest that you try to see this in perspective.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/07/2010|
I'm not R77 but once you've lied to my face like Obama has, I won't trust you again, ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/07/2010|
[quote][R75], please tell me who in this country would have standing to bring a pro-DADT court case. There are no constitutional grounds to bring one. None.
The Palin Justice Department.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/07/2010|
Oh, okay, R80. In 2013, the first act of the fictional Palin Administration would have done that right away, huh? Is that really all you've got? %0D %0D And, I'm not even sure a sitting president could bring that lawsuit since it's already been found unconstitutional.%0D %0D Either way, you're all reaching for straws to explain away Obama's utter betrayal on this. The facts remain that if unappealed, the court ruling would have stood, probably as the law of the land from this point forward.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/07/2010|
[quote]Is that really all you've got?
It's more than enough. But if you're not satisfied, what about all the other pending DADT cases? Those judges ARE NOT BOUND to follow the California district court.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/07/2010|
[quote]So now what happens to DADT repeal?%0D %0D If you don't ask, we won't tell.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/08/2010|
R82, so you believe the plaintiffs in any other case (do you have a specific case in mind, btw?) who are seeking to overturn DADT would go forward with their cases even if the Obama administration had let the ruling stand? Not likely. They wouldn't take the risk. %0D %0D As far as I know, there is no case anywhere in the system seeking the implementation of DADT. In fact, only the federal government would have the standing to put forth such a case. Obama will be in office until at least 2013. So, the repeal would have stood until 2013 with absolutely no action against it.%0D %0D And, there is no way that after two or more years of openly gay people serving in the military they'd try to reverse it. Not even the Repugs. I mean, repeal of DADT has a 70% approval rating across the board, including Repugs. The only reason there is still a DADT policy is because of Obama's political stupidity.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/08/2010|
Not looking good anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/08/2010|
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/08/2010|
October 20, 2010
How to Really End %E2%80%98Don%E2%80%99t Ask, Don%E2%80%99t Tell%E2%80%99
By WALTER DELLINGER
A FEDERAL appeals court on Wednesday granted the Obama administration%E2%80%99s emergency request for a stay against a lower court order lifting the military%E2%80%99s %E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t ask, don%E2%80%99t tell%E2%80%9D policy barring openly gay service members.
The decision will strike some people as odd, since popular belief holds that the president, who has said he opposes the law, can make the policy go away by simply letting the lower court order stand. In fact, the administration is required to comply with the law and defend it in court, regardless of Mr. Obama%E2%80%99s personal views.
Fortunately, there is another, seemingly contradictory step the White House could take that would not only make its position clear, but deal a significant blow to the law%E2%80%99s prospects: while continuing to appeal the ruling, the administration could inform the courts that it believes %E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t ask, don%E2%80%99t tell%E2%80%9D is unconstitutional.
Many people seem to believe that the law would disappear if the Justice Department refused to appeal the court order. But there are two reasons that%E2%80%99s not the case.
First, the government has an obligation to comply with the nation%E2%80%99s laws, regardless of whether the president agrees with a particular statute. Doing otherwise would also set a precedent justifying similar nullifications by future administrations. The next president might, for example, decide not to enforce the recent health care reform law; all he would need would be a single ruling against the law by a single district court judge, which he would then refuse to appeal.
Presidents in rare instances can determine that a law is unconstitutional and decline to comply with it. But a 1994 opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (where I was the head) concluded that a president can do so only under very special circumstances, including a conclusion on his part that it is %E2%80%9Cprobable%E2%80%9D that the Supreme Court would agree with him %E2%80%94 a tough argument to make about %E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t ask, don%E2%80%99t tell%E2%80%9D at this point.
Declining to appeal, moreover, wouldn%E2%80%99t resolve the issue. The law would remain on the books, and a future president could always seek to reopen and set aside the district court%E2%80%99s order.
However, Mr. Obama may have another option: while appealing the lower court%E2%80%99s decision, he could have the Justice Department tell the appellate court that the executive branch believes the law is unconstitutional.
In other words, the Justice Department would take the formal steps necessary to defend the law, but it would also make substantive arguments about why the law should be struck down. The Supreme Court could still vote to uphold the law, but the president%E2%80%99s position could significantly influence how the court rules.
Doing so wouldn%E2%80%99t unfairly strip the law of adequate defense: if the administration took a stand against the law, the appellate courts would very likely allow lawyers for Congress or outside groups to appear and argue on its behalf.
This approach is not unprecedented. In 1943, Congress passed a law prohibiting the payment of salaries to three particular government employees. Arguing that the law was unconstitutional, the employees sued and won in claims court. The solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to review the lower court%E2%80%99s decision, but he also told the justices that the administration agreed with the original ruling; the court ultimately struck down the law.
That case and others like it provided a precedent for President Bill Clinton in 1996 both to comply with a law requiring the military to discharge service members who had H.I.V., and at the same time inform the courts that he found it to be unconstitutional. Thanks in part to support from the military, Congress repealed the law before litigation ensued.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/08/2010|
Telling the courts that a federal law should be struck down is not a position to be taken lightly by a president wary of overstepping his bounds. But if he concludes that the law restricts important liberties without advancing a government purpose, he has the right to say so. After all, while courts usually defer to Congress on such questions, the president is under no such obligation: he is a constitutional officer entitled to his own views on governmental necessity, particularly on matters of national defense.
True, having the administration argue that the law is unconstitutional wouldn%E2%80%99t guarantee that the Supreme Court would strike it down: in 1990, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a federal minority preference program even though the acting solicitor general (and future Supreme Court chief justice), John G. Roberts Jr., argued it was unconstitutional.
But the president could increase the chances that the appellate courts would agree with him by following a deliberate process that gives consideration to the views of the military leadership, some of whom have already come out against the policy. The courts would be more likely to defer to such a clear, unified position.
Since 1993 more than 13,000 men and women have been unfairly discharged from the military, people who could have been of service in America%E2%80%99s overseas conflicts. The best path to ending %E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t ask, don%E2%80%99t tell%E2%80%9D is for Congress to repeal the law as soon as possible. If it doesn%E2%80%99t, President Obama should give the Supreme Court his administration%E2%80%99s honest view: that the law is harmful to national security.
Walter Dellinger, a lawyer, was the head of the Justice Department%E2%80%99s Office of Legal Counsel from 1993 to 1996.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/08/2010|
R87/R88, is the Obama administration doing that? No.%0D %0D [quote]In fact, the administration is required to comply with the law and defend it in court, regardless of Mr. Obama's personal views.%0D %0D And, they can keep saying this all they want but it still doesn't make it true. The Obama administration has already chosen not to appeal some cases involving the overturning of federal laws. And, the precedent setting argument doesn't hold water because the precedent has already been set by Bush and others. Additionally, try telling the next Repug president not to do something because the Obama administration didn't set the precedent...they laugh you out of the room as they do exactly as they please.%0D %0D Also, there is a difference between a law you disagree with on principle and a law that you believe to be unconstitutional. Obama has stated that he believes DADT to be unconstitusional, not that it just goes against his principles.%0D %0D Ted Olsen made great arguments as to why, legally and ethically, Obama did not have to appeal this ruling. Obama had a choice and it's very clear what he chose. DADT will be in place for a very long time to come because of his choice.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/08/2010|
Republicans all favor keeping DADT.
They don't lie about it.
Democrats lie like rugs.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/08/2010|
Democrats are not up to fighting for LGBT and DADT and any other gay friendly leg is out and gone. Expect the House to start figuring out ways to institute hate and the Dems to roll over. We're in for a long 8 to 10 years of anti-gay crap
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/08/2010|
[quote][R87]/[R88], is the Obama administration doing that? No.
We don't know what the Justice Department will argue, R89. I happen to think they will in fact do as Dellinger suggests, but this entire thread has shown you are impervious to argument, so I'll leave it at that.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/08/2010|
"...We don't know what the Justice Department will argue..." - Really R92?%0D %0D You have no idea what the administration will do? Really? No recent history to give you a fucking clue?
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/08/2010|
R92, you sure are haughty for someone who still hasn't explained how anything would have been done to halt the repeal of DADT between now and 2013 at the earliest. You can pull fantasy scenarios out of your ass but that doesn't make them true and it doesn't mean they will happen.%0D %0D In the real world, we won a repeal of DADT a few weeks ago. It was gone. Maybe it wasn't gone forever but it was gone for now and, in all likelihood, it would have stayed gone. Dems are all in favor of it and so are a lot of the Repugs but they can't be seen voting for a repeal. The court ruling was the perfect way for the Dems to win and the Repugs to save face and not have to act either way on the issue.%0D %0D DADT will now be here for years and years to come, no matter how you try to explain and excuse the administration's actions away.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/09/2010|
"DADT will now be here for years and years to come"
I certainly agree with you that it's gone until 2012 at least. We aren't going to be able to get rid of it now that all these Republicans are coming in.
Maybe if the Dems win in 2012 it can be put back on the agenda again, but for now we are stuck with it.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/09/2010|
Is our "fierce advocate" going to step up and show leadership in the lame duck Congress?%0D %0D The so-called repeal is just another thing that highlights Obama's incomptency and lies.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/09/2010|
R96, what annoys me is that Obama has been saying all fall that it would be repealed before the new Congress takes office in January.
It looks like that was a lie.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/09/2010|
R97. Regarding Obama's position on DADT, it was a lie; it was bullshit; it was lack of preparedness; it was lack of leadership; it was naivete; it was lack of experience; it was a lack of focus; it was not believing in equality with the courage of his convictions; it was being spineless; it was not caring enough; it was all politics; it was Obama's arrogance toward the gay community and to others who elected him; and it was complete and total disregard for gay issues of equality.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/09/2010|
bump for "cunty and accurate" OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/09/2010|
Obama is a coward.%0D %0D The only way anything of concern LGBT folks is going to happen in the next several years is through the courts. %0D %0D The Democrats have shown time and again that they will say anything(to get our votes and our money) and do absolutely nothing about gay issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/09/2010|
I'd really like to know if any of you defending him on this actually believe it will be repealed during the lame duck session? Or, do you actually think it will pass with the new Congress come January? %0D %0D The repeal is now dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/10/2010|
This is what I don't understand. Obama is supposed to be a smart guy, but yet it's been obvious for weeks that there was going to be a Republican take-over in the House.
Yet he still kept promising it would be repealed before January even though that is very unlikely.
Why didn't he do it when he had Democratic majorities in both Houses?
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/10/2010|
Interesting. We should reference this link when we email our local and federal politicians.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/10/2010|
R103, only freepers criticize or make demands of this White House! Haven't you learned that yet. Poor, poor Huffington post, now a freeper site and they don't even know it.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/10/2010|
Since we can't go back in time and change Obama's dumbass appeal, what is the next legal step? What path will this have to take to be repealed now that it's clear it's not going to happen in Congress any time soon?
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/11/2010|
The DADT repeal (thank you Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) was a step toward the end of DOMA.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||06/26/2013|