Interesting dont ask dont tell

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bruinsrme, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    Whilst great, it's a District Court ruling so can still be appealed. Congress is obviously just being a complete waste of space on DADT, so it will only be when the Supreme Court rules that they'll be any action.

    Why are modern politicians such cowards?
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #3
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Presidential orders can be overturned, courts setting precedents have a much less liklihood of doing so.
     
  4. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #5
    Good point.

    Not worth the bother.
     
  5. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    I think he deffinitely should have made this as big an issue as he could have, he failed on that front.

    That said, does anyone know if once such an order is executed does that block the court system from being able to rule on it? :confused:
     
  6. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #7
    There are several things that could happen now:

    1) DOJ does not appeal - DADT is history
    2) DOJ appeals and 9th circuit stays order (discharges continue)
    2) DOJ appeals and 9th circuit does not stays order (discharges stop until court case is over)

    The DOJ does not have to appeal - a Supreme Court ruling is not needed to stop DADT at this point.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    Question is does a district court have the athorty to remove it nation wide? I know that was something I heard on NPR today. They were saying that there is some question on if the judge order is to far reaching and well outside there juristriction.
     
  8. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #9
    Yes, a district court judge would have such authority because they are Article 3 judges under the Constitution with authority that extends:

    The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in a situation like this, which means they can only hear an appeal. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (aka becomes the finder of fact, like a jury or a judge) in a handful of cases that involve specific situations (you can find the complete list in the rest of Section 2).

    District Courts hear cases against the United States all the time (like if a mailman hits your car), and this is essentially the same thing (a law passed by Congress was challenged).

    I'm guessing what you heard on NPR was related to the nature of jurisdiction for military matters. Military courts usually deal only with charges of violations of the UCMJ though, and since the today's ruling is really based on how the policy restricts 1st and 5th Amendment rights, I don't think there is a case to be made for this to have been decided by a military appeals court.
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #10
    Well that clears things up. I only heard the last little bit of as I was driving close to campus running out to the store to get something for class.

    I was rather confused about it all.

    I know that the they were saying that it was be told for Gays in the military to still not come out as no one is really sure what exactly is going to happen and there is all this question of power.
     
  10. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    There isn't really a question of power though. This judge did not overstep any boundaries.

    The reason people are being told not to come out since they don't know if there will be an appeal. If there is, and the justice department is successful in its appeal, those who came out might still be kicked out.

    If there is no appeal then this issue will, thankfully, finally be put to rest.
     
  11. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #12
    If Obama is serious about ending DADT then he needs to order the Justice Dept. not to appeal the case and let DADT die. This is his chance to end it.
     
  12. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #13
    If he orders the JD to appeal this, count every.single.gay.vote.as.gone.

    Speaking for myself only here, I would be extremely pissed.
     
  13. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #14
    That's not that many, he would be likely to gain more than he'd lose
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    My bet is he is Obama is not going to do a thing and the DOJ will appeal it. This is effectly the same thing as Obama telling them to appeal it since he did not say a word
     
  15. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    I disagree. Those that want to maintain DADT have a very strong overlap with those that hate Obama and the Democrats just because. There's nothing to be gained by courting them. American Presidential elections are tight run races. Lose any sizeable demographic such as the gay vote and he's out of office in 2012. He knows this.
     
  16. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #17
    I wouldn't think so. afaik, the majority of the population wants DADT to be repealed, and not only would he lose the support of the GLBT community, he'd lose support of most of those who support and help the GLBT community, such as myself any nearly everyone I know. we're all disgruntled with him to begin with, he shouldn't make matters worse by actively pursuing an appeal or allowing an appeal to happen without saying anything.
     
  17. coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #18
    Like there would be another choice?

    This is why the Dems are so lackadaisical on gay issues.

    They know gays generally have a choice of "tepid support" or "you are an abomination that will burn in hell and should be slandered at every opportunity". So it's not like there is anywhere else to go even if they don't try very hard.
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    Every voter has a third option. Stay at home and reject both candidates. Often that's the factor that decides elections.

    I suppose it does underline just how lucky we are here in the UK. The only parties that are opposed to gay equality are the far-right and totally unelectable BNP or Northern Irish Presbyterian nutcases like the DUP. Either way there is no major party that advocates continuing discriminatory laws.
     
  19. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #20
    Staying at home doesn't protect you from any legislation. You're still a US citizen. The only thing staying at home gets you is the greater of two evils.

    I doubt Obama, despite his "take it or leaver it" approach to gay rights, will try to axe this. McCain would have condemned this a day before he knew about it. You can probably say the same thing for whoever Obama is against in 2012. Instead of getting another 4 years of "tepid support" you'll almost certainly get 4 - 8 years of total and complete opposition, with a real chance of moving backwards.

    Voting for Obama isn't going to get his supports what they want. Rather, it gets them an environment where liberal/progressive agenda items can even be considered. Voting isn't about getting what you want. If you think of elections like that you'll always be disappointed and bitter. By voting you're trying to foster an environment that suites your political views, even if only slightly.
     
  20. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #21
    From what I have read so far this lawsuit was brought forward by the Log Cabin Republicans. Granted that is a group of citizens not politicians, but it is funny that a Republican group has made more progress on this issue then the Democrats.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    You'd be interested if you looked into that particular group's past. Yes they actually were the ones to bring this up, but at the same time they give out "advocate" awards to some of the most anti gay conservatives I've seen. The entire group is a real head scratcher. :confused:
     
  22. coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #23
    Sure a minority of some Republicans support gay rights. But virtually no candidates with those positions win any Republican primaries for national office because that type of view is not very broad within the party.
     
  23. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #24
    This is great news, now maybe my country can stop legally discriminating against its own citizens. Makes me so angry.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    Erm....Dick Cheney was VPOTUS.
     

Share This Page