Obama: keep DADT for now(!)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by sysiphus, Oct 14, 2010.

  1. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #1
    AP, via Seattle Times.

    The extract at the top of the article is as follows:
    What an ass. If there was any question about Obama's action/lack thereof on DADT being totally driven by political expediency...well, this should answer it.
    :(
     
  2. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #2
    Why is he holding back on this? I don't get it.

    It seems that he does want to end DADT, but something makes him postpone the big public push for it.
     
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    A guest on Rachel Maddow explained it pretty well actually...if the DOJ doesn't appeal a ruling that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional, it sets a precedent for any district judge tossing out a law with one ruling (the specific example was health care reform - one judge shouldn't be able to declare it unconstitutional and have the whole thing tossed). The guest can explain it better than I can, and I'm sure the video is out there, but it made sense. It's just unfortunate that DADT has to be the case that they need to set precedent for.

    Some people interviewed seem to think they'll have the votes in the senate for it during the lame duck session, maybe they're hoping they can peel off one or two republican votes from cowardly senators who won't have to worry about re-election for another 6 years.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    He said in the town hall today that as a result of the presidential order back in the day forcing integration in the military, congress put in place some sort of measure that keeps him from having the authority to repeal DADT.

    I'm scouring the internet right now to find out WTF he's talking about. Feel free to help out if you want.
     
  5. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #5
    This is what is called checks and balances in action boys and girls it is important to the process--just because we are used to the internet giving instant gratification and our microwave burritos does not mean the government does or should I would worry a lot more if it did. Obama wants to wait the judge doesn't who knows what the other 100 senators and 400+ representatives think none of them carry the full authority to change things over night individually--though some believe they can magically.

    I would really start to worry if they all started thinking exactly the same--sure laws might get passed a lot quicker but done in haste we might not like all of the laws passed.

    Later dudes my burrito is ready
     
  6. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #6
    Simply put, because he can. It's not as though the millions of gay voters he's snubbing are going to suddenly switch parties and vote for the other guy in 2012 because of this, provided it's not resolved by then.
     
  7. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #7
    So he's saving it for a time when the GOP aren't destroying themselves?
     
  8. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    In the past decade the USA has lost any leadership on the issue of human rights and equality it held. So far behind the rest of the developed world now on so many levels. Such a shame.
     
  9. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #9
    To be fair it's hard to think of anytime where the U.S. had any sort of leadership with human rights or equality issues.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Obama can go to hell. He did not have to do this. He could have let this go. He is not interested in helping us at all. It's just like the Clinton administration.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    1795?
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    I agree.
     
  13. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #13
    The midterm elections.
    Two facts remain: 1) Obama used up most of his feel-good mandate political capital on earlier, questionable priorities; and 2) the Executive branch is supposed to enforce law as written, not make law (that is the role of the Legislative branch). The Executive branch COULD be seen as being between a rock and a hard place. As is, there is no consensus in our increasingly polarized lesgislative to repeal DADT. By appealing, perhaps to the Supreme Court, final ruling would do, by judicial application of Constitutional guidelines, what politicians don't have the balls to do. Many civil rights issues in the US have heretofore been resolved in this manner.

    In the end, it IS sad that we cannot reconcile these issues in the US and recognize "all men [mankind] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
     
  14. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #14
    To be honest I think it's pathetic that this is even an issue.

    Strictly speaking, all those constitutionalists (or something like that) who go on and on about what the founding fathers would have wanted should recognize the equality of gay people. Otherwise they would be morons.

    Heh.


    Shouldn't the President be able to change a law that discriminates easily? Although, that would open the door for other Presidents to make laws that discriminate again, and we're back to square one.
     
  15. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Wow, bitter much? The executive branch needs to appeal this ruling, otherwise, DADT would still stand as law. Until it gets to the Supreme Court, the law would still exist putting the military into a bind.

    The BEST solution is for congress to repeal the law.
    The Second best solution is for the Courts to strike down the law (not just order that it not be enforced).
    The WORST solution is for the administration to stop enforcing DADT because then there is no longer a controversy, and the courts can just throw out the cases and end the march to the second best solution.

    DADT repeal is absolutely in the hands of the minority that has abused the filibuster rules. Democrats could push harder, the president could push harder, but in the end, DADT won't be repealed until the filibuster rules are changed or the people say enough is enough to the right-wing legislators.
     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #16
    And then a republican president can start enforcing it the day they take office.

    DADT needs to be repealed via congress because that offers the least chance that a future administration can put it back. Leaving it on the books but not enforcing it is not the solution. Going to the SCOTUS is not the solution (because I don't trust the conservatives on it). It has to be removed via legislation.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Obama can still put discharges on hold until it makes it's way through the system. He absolutely can and should do that. He won't though. He doesn't have the balls. :mad:

    And yes, so far all I hear are echoes of the Clinton administration. The courts will end up getting rid of this, trust me. The legislature is useless and won't do one damn thing. Then all the senators and representatives can just use the excuse "the courts made it go away and took it out of our hands!" Then they're safe form attacks form the right. **** this. This is utterly ridiculous. Our legislative branch is broken.
     
  18. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18
    What's really going on...



     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Uh-huh. Yeah, right. The whole mess is a whole bunch of people who don't want to grow a pair and end this thing. It should be quite obvious to anyone paying attention that this is all a bunch of political BS from both sides.

    Hey public servants! Even the the PUBLIC has told you to end DADT! END IT.

    For those of you who think we're being "hard" on Obama. Aww! Wah, wah! Go cry with Glenn Beck. We told you we were going to hold his feet to the fire. We fully intend to.
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20

    Yes, Lee, I'm sure it's that simple... despite the facts.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    BV, what I see from the facts is a bunch of people who want to pass the buck. The courts will end up taking responsibility for ending this. Mark my words. The politicians can then walk away unscathed.
     
  22. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #22

    That is what you want to see. You've already made your mind up, oblivious to the reality and the complexity of the situation.

    Judge this administration in November 2012.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    And then spend the next 4 years watching what whoever may replace it would do.

    I can almost guarantee you Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich wouldn't repeal DADT. They would veto anything that managed to get past all the right-wing and tea party filibusters in congress.
     
  24. sysiphus thread starter macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #24
    Nothing personal, but that's total BS, and I think you know it. Obama & co could have seen this through when they had total control of both houses. They decided the political capital was worth more around an election, but I guess someone decided it wasn't a make/break issue for the midterms, so they might as well sit on it until 2012. This has nothing to do with anything but political expediency.
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Total control of both houses? You mean, like when they enacted universal health care and a stimulus plan that was about twice what we ended up with?
     

Share This Page