Breaking: Federal judge in California says “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional

posted at 10:07 pm on September 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

This one isn’t quite as explosive as the Prop 8 ruling, partly because a heavy majority (including a majority of Republicans) already supports letting people who are openly gay serve and partly because the policy’s already on its way out. But if you’re looking for a little extra something to fuel this fall’s populist mojo, some legalistic jujitsu by an unelected judge against a longstanding national policy will do the trick nicely.

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…

The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

That’s from the LA Times, which insists that the DOJ “vigorously defended” the policy in this case. Did it, though? Here’s a tidbit from the end of the court’s opinion:

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act’s restrictions on speech are “no more than is reasonably necessary” to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion.

Sounds like the feds maybe kinda sorta wanted to lose this one, possibly to help break the logjam in the Senate. (Maybe something for the lame-duck session?) The opinion’s long but I recommend skimming the material starting on the bottom of page 72. There are two claims: First, that DADT violates gay service members’ due process right of “intimate conduct” — a direct result of Kennedy’s opinion striking down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas — and second, that it infringes on their right to free speech by forbidding them from talking about all sorts of subjects in the interest of keeping them closeted. The military can, of course, force its members to keep silent about various things and it can also restrict their “intimate conduct” — but it needs a compelling reason to do so, and according to the court, based on the evidence there’s simply no compelling reason to do that vis-a-vis orientation. (Military personnel from various U.S. allies who already allow gays in their armies say the same thing.) There’s no equal protection ruling here as there was in the Prop 8 case, but otherwise the reasoning is very much the same. Since the government is either unwilling or unable to provide a convincing argument for discriminating based on sexuality, they can’t discriminate based on sexuality. Simple as that.

Exit question: How does The One play this tomorrow?

Update: Oh, speaking of gay rights, California, and judicial overreach, the state supreme court decided yesterday that it won’t require the governor or the attorney general to defend Prop 8. Which means, unless and until a federal appeals court takes this up, there’s no one in California with standing to defend the law even if they want to.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

partly because the policy’s already on its way out

No it isn’t…

ninjapirate on September 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Exit question: How does The One play this tomorrow?

I won ?

macncheez on September 9, 2010 at 10:11 PM

So.

The DoD now has to revert to original policy: asking people about their sexual orientation before enlistment, denying anyone saying they are homosexual enlistment, investigating and prosecuting homosexuality as they did prior to DADT.

Right?

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 10:11 PM

a heavy majority (including a majority of Republicans) already supports letting people who are openly gay serve

*facepalm*
And some people call this a Christian nation.

itsnotaboutme on September 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I don’t think our civil courts can dictate policy to the military…per their Constitutional powers.

Jenfidel on September 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM


Federal judge in California says “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional

So does that mean we can go back to asking and telling?

It’s amazing to me how many people were against Bill Klinton on this and now they’re trying to hold on to what he put into place … it’s called INCREMENTALISM, people!

Tony737 on September 9, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Exit question: How does The One play this tomorrow?

As CIC, I guess he could get one of them to redecorate his office.

Ronnie on September 9, 2010 at 10:15 PM

stupid, yes. unconsittutional, no.

Mr. Joe on September 9, 2010 at 10:15 PM

stupid, yes. unconstitutional, no.

learn to spell much, no. my bad. typo.

Mr. Joe on September 9, 2010 at 10:16 PM

“— but it needs compelling reason to do so, and according to the court, there’s simply no compelling reason to do that vis-a-vis orientation based on the evidence.”

I can’t wait for the first open homosexual First Striker Brigade to set up shop with our Muslim allies…

… Should be a hoot!

Seven Percent Solution on September 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I really don’t care, but when it comes from a judge, I get irritated to all hell.

Daemonocracy on September 9, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

well sure….it sure does say it right in there….because the “federal judge” said so….

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

In other words, an activist judge has decided that DADT is too complex to be decided by the voters or their elected representatives. The issue needs to be decided by an unelected liberal California official.

Next up: Electing representatives to Congress is too complex and conservatives elected discriminate against certain protected classes. Therefore, it falls upon a trusty central committee — ethnically and sexually diverse, of course — to decided who goes to Congress.

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

WIN! Thanks, judge!

It's Vintage, Duh on September 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Another foot bullet?

No witnesses? No affirmative case? And the general public is just going to swallow this? Yeah, right.

Rocks on September 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

If the draft were in effect, this effort might have a legal chance.

(Although, if there were an active draft, the military could then be sued for not demanding that women also register, because it would be a flagrant act of gender discrimination and favoritism by sex.)

But, since it is an all-volunteer, military the ruling is bogus.

profitsbeard on September 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Question: Won’t permitting gays to serve in our Armed Forces lead to violence from Muslims? I hear they’re not big on the whole gay thing, and now you’ll be sending gays to fight in their countries.

Or do we not care about the feelings of Muslims on this particular issue?

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Perhaps we should get the “Muslim Street” opinion on this one…

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 10:22 PM

WHO THE HELL IS THE JUDGE TO SAY THAT THIS POLICY HAS A “DELETERIOUS EFFECT” ON THE MILITARY?? WHAT ARE HER DAMM QUALIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS??

Look, I don’t buy the “Allah’s a RINO crap”. But dude, you need to show a little more passion on this one.

A judge may be qualified to determine First Amendment issues, but is distinctly UNQUALIFIED to determine military effectiveness. I don’t care if repeal of DADT is your pet issue. If a judge can do it on this, they’ve opened a wide door on ALL military policies.

Don’t just clinically break this down. C’mon, Allah, show a little fight!! This is serious stuff.

HDFOB on September 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

WHO THE HELL IS THE JUDGE TO SAY THAT THIS POLICY HAS A “DELETERIOUS EFFECT” ON THE MILITARY?? WHAT ARE HER DAMM QUALIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS??

HDFOB on September 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM

She’s a graduate of UC Berkeley and a Clinton appointee. How dare you suggest she’s not qualified to determine military policy!

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

This comes as no surprise.

jeanie on September 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Since the government is either unwilling or unable to provide a convincing argument for discriminating based on sexuality, they can’t discriminate based on sexuality. Simple as that.

Oh, so open and shut. *dusting off hands*….nevermind that this has to go through congress because Congress has the responsibility to

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Does it matter that people entering the miltarily agree to abide by the UCMJ?

I can see how things might be different if there was a draft… but as far as I can figure, everyone currently serving in uniform joined voluntarily, either when homosexuals were outright banned from serving, or under DADT.

malclave on September 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Don’t even know what this one’s about, but I’m betting it gets thrown out because the judge shouldn’t have ruled on it in the first place.

J.E. Dyer on September 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

And who brought this lawsuit? The Log Cabin Republicans.

Are there any Democrats doing anything concrete for gay rights?

Apologetic California on September 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

because the Constitution makes it ohhhhh so clear as to what the role of a lower court is in the administration of the military…..*massive f*cking eyeroll*….

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:29 PM

another power of the people usurped by Article III lower court.

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Apologetic California on September 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Yeah, you can tell how dedicated the Log Cabin Republicans are to small government by the fact they asked an activist judge to throw out a federal law she had no jurisdiction to touch.

Even the Obama Admin argued she lacked sufficient authority.

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM

So that’s what’s going on out there tonight. Yeah… i live in San Francisco.

Rude on September 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM

After almost 20 years, NOW it’s unconstitutional? Sure…

joejm65 on September 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Perhaps the judge is an attention whore?

John the Libertarian on September 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Even the Obama Admin argued she lacked sufficient authority.

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM

since when did that ever stop a judge from reading into the meaning of the Constitution??? When, in the last 50 years, has the Constitution ever impeded the liberal agenda one bit?

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Red Eye tomorrow should be awesome, and seriously NSFW…

Maquis on September 9, 2010 at 10:36 PM

After almost 20 years, NOW it’s unconstitutional? Sure…

joejm65 on September 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM

the only things judged unconstitutional today are laws that would impede the liberal agenda. The term “unconstitutional” is a proxy for “impedes liberal agenda” and not for laws that are actually “unconstitutional.”

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Like Obama, I’m no law professor, but this sounds really thin to me as a way to rule any law…

To comply with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act, Doe must keep his sexual
orientation a secret from his coworkers, his unit, and his military superiors,
and he may not communicate the core of his emotions and identity to others
in the same manner as heterosexual members of the military, on pain of
discharge from the Army.

SouthernGent on September 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

the only things judged unconstitutional today are laws that would impede the liberal agenda. The term “unconstitutional” is a proxy for “impedes liberal agenda” and not for laws that are actually “unconstitutional.”

ted c on September 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Yep.

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

“She joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton”

Of course…

bofh on September 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

This is why we need to elect Mike Castle. He will get us a majority on the Senate Judiciary and they will stop judges like this from being seated. Oh wait a minute…didn’t we have a majority in 1999?

Rocks on September 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Yeah, Jerry Brown is too busy running for governor to represent the people in court.

I’m sure he’ll score major points with 52% of voters.

As for the DADT case, any bets the judge is a) liberal, b) never served in the military and quite possibly c) is also gay?

GarandFan on September 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

As for the DADT case, any bets the judge is a) liberal, b) never served in the military and quite possibly c) is also gay?

GarandFan on September 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Not sure about gay, but she’s a UC Berkeley graduate who was appointed by Clinton and has never served in the military.

amerpundit on September 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Yeah… i live in San Francisco.

Rude on September 9, 2010 at 10:31 PM

You smelling the smoke there ?

macncheez on September 9, 2010 at 10:44 PM

if you’ve ever served aboard a U.S. destroyer (or other naval vessel) where 6 men share LESS space the average elevator…then you can appreciate and have a VALID opinion on being OPENLY gay in the military. otherwise STFU.

Justrand on September 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Why did this take so long. DADT was in full affect during Bush and there is nothing that the left would like more then a Bush defeat in this. I think it was put up by the left who actually believed Oh would get rid of this in short order in about 20 months ago not just start the process to get rid of it sometime after they ask every General and make a dozen reports.

This does start a bad precedent in that a civilian court can dictate how the military as a whole operates on something at its core.

tjexcite on September 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM

I’m pretty sure activist Judge Virginia Phillips was activist Judge “Prop 8″ Walker’s brother before the operation.

viking01 on September 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Breaking: Federal Court finds American people unconstitutional. Orders they be replaced with Mexicans.

Django on September 9, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Didn’t I see on the Fox news scroll that funding for embryonic stem cells got reinstate today also?

Cindy Munford on September 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM

I’m probably going to be in the minority on this and most likely get heckled, but so be it. I’m a big boy. It needs to be said.

I’m a Conservative Republican. I’m a US Army Veteran, seven years. I am NOT GAY.

It really is time this whole “gays in the military” issue is addressed once and for all. Not all Conservatives are afraid of gay people.

Gay people are Americans. They are proud of their country, they love their country and many of them want to, and do, serve our country and put their lives on the line for “our” freedom. They are real people with real feelings, real ambitions, patriotism, real drives and motivations just like the rest of us have in life.

Any man or woman, straight or gay, that wants to put their life on the line, serve our country and protect my/our freedoms, deserve our gratitude and respect, not our condemnation.

Let’s leave “Judgment day” to God. In the end, He’ll sort it out according to his will, not ours.

BruthaMan on September 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

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.

People in the military don’t have 1st Amendment rights in the same way civilians do. There are all kinds of things military personnel are required to shut up about.

Django on September 9, 2010 at 11:03 PM

@BruthaMan as a gay guy that wanted to join the military thank you for your words.

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:04 PM

@Zekecorlain

Any time, brother.

BruthaMan on September 9, 2010 at 11:09 PM

I can’t wait for the first open homosexual First Striker Brigade to set up shop with our Muslim allies…

… Should be a hoot!

Seven Percent Solution on September 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Well, if they are youngish-looking blond guys, they might be very popular with muslim men. Talk about ‘hearts and minds’!

slickwillie2001 on September 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Exit question: How does The One play this tomorrow?

Like he does every other hot button topic: Say one thing one day then flip-flop the next day.

EASY!

RedNewEnglander on September 9, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has already head up in courts.
I knew this Rand Corp queer Allahpundit would put up this means nothing ruling right away.
Don’t be fooled. Allahpundit is no conservative in any sense of the word. Michelle is just a money maker, who in fact bring done the intellect of conservatives.

It’s time to cut hotair loose from our visits.

LeeSeneca on September 9, 2010 at 11:24 PM

Justrand on September 9, 2010 at 10:46 PM

I KNEW you swabbies were teh ghey…

:)

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM

catmman…I’m a former Marine, but the living conditions were the same. you could NOT turn around in quarters without having naked men up against you. they may or may not have been gay…but since everyone had to keep it to themselves there was no tension!!!!!!!!!!!!!

people with ZERO concept of military life always have the most and loudest opinions.

Justrand on September 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I am of the impression that all federal military cases go through the DC Circuit, not the 9th, so any appeal will get to real Judges, in a few years.

JIMV on September 9, 2010 at 11:35 PM

@Justrand why wouldn’t gays keep it to them selves if DADT is repealed?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Frankly, I don’t know any conservatives, anyone who is afraid of gay people. Not saying there aren’t any out there, but swiping with the wide brush isn’t a tactic of honest debate.

There are many gay people who are in the military right now, as there have been over the years. They serve and have served with distinction. Where they differ with the activists is they truly love their country and can live by a set of rules they themselves agreed to.

Anyone going into the military knows the score. Before DADT, if you were gay, don’t join. After DADT, if you live by the policy, there will be no problems.

If you can’t, then either don’t join the military or get out. Going in and using your sexual identity as a way to affect social and political change, to become some kind of lefty celeb or a martyr for the ’cause’ shows you to be what you are – a POS, frankly.

I agree, this issue should indeed be dealt with once and for all. Until that is done, follow the law. If you can’t, then do something else with your life.

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Justrand on September 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I’m a 22 year AF retiree. I do have some concept of military life. I also have loud opinions on the subject.

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 11:38 PM

My opinion of DADT aside, I’m not sure I’m all that excited about judges deciding on constitutionality of military policy.

flipflop on September 9, 2010 at 11:39 PM

Brought to you by the Log Cabin “republicans”-go away!! Judges are ruining this country

Bullhead on September 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Didn’t I see on the Fox news scroll that funding for embryonic stem cells got reinstate today als
Yes another judge ruining our country

Bullhead on September 9, 2010 at 11:45 PM

@catmman what do you say to service men and women that accept that they are gay after joining?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

“This one isn’t quite as explosive as the Prop 8 ruling, partly because a heavy majority (including a majority of Republicans)”
Only RINO Republicans go along-They also need to just go join the liberal Democrats

Bullhead on September 9, 2010 at 11:47 PM

@bullhead are judges the enemy? what if you had to go to trial on something? what would you want them to rule by, public sentiment or the facts?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Until things get changed: Follow the law. Or get out.

How hard is that?

catmman on September 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM

My wife and I recently completed lengthy surveys sent out by the military about the repeal of DADT.

At the end of mine I noted that there was no point to doing the surveys since the policy would be determined by civilian leadership and our opinions don’t matter.

Looks like I was right, except that I figured that the legislative branch, not the judicial would, er, um, ram it down our throats…

Abelard on September 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM

@bullhead I suppose that anyone that disagrees with you is a traitor?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Judges now days do not follow the rule of law-they are activist and make up their own laws

Bullhead on September 9, 2010 at 11:51 PM

@catmman as someone that lived in the closet I can assure you that it is much harder and detrimental than you might assume. I understand the sentiments and once shared them, but seeing as how every military that accepted openly gay members suffered no harm, and that you allow people to be blackmailed for their sexuality I’m not understanding the benefit to society

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM

@Bullhead so says anyone that loses a case does that make it true?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:53 PM

My sis got the survey for military too -she is not in the service but her hsb. is . Who is going to fill this out honestly ? No one because of the fear of being taking to task by their superiors.

Bullhead on September 9, 2010 at 11:53 PM

@Abelard is there a difference in constitutional power?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM

@Bullhead um ther is one for servicemembers family are they going to be court martialed too?

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Any man or woman, straight or gay, that wants to put their life on the line, serve our country and protect my/our freedoms, deserve our gratitude and respect, not our condemnation.

BruthaMan on September 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Outstanding. Well said, and THANK YOU for your service. It is deeply appreciated.

John the Libertarian on September 9, 2010 at 11:57 PM

I wonder if the miltary response to an Obama administration refusal to appeal ‘dont ask dont tell’ will be to segregate gays in the same manner they segregate women?

Freddy on September 10, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Zekecorlain on September 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Then don’t live in the closet. If you don’t want to be ‘forced’ to live in the closet, then stay away from military service until things get changed.

Seeing how we’re not talking about other militaries, but the American one, your point is irrelevant to mine. Those issues will be worked out by the civilian leadership, like they are now.

I don’t allow anyone to be blackmailed by or for their sexuality. Gays in the military are not victims, even if they are prosecuted as the law currently allows. There are consequences. As I stated before, gays entering the military know the score going in. Military service is not compulsory. As I also stated, if your sexual identity means that much to you, do something else with your life until things change.

catmman on September 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Which means, unless and until a federal appeals court takes this up, there’s no one in California with standing to defend the law even if they want to.

Of course, unmentioned in the biased SF paper, is the fact that IF the proponents, that were selected by the judge in the prior trial, do NOT have standing to appeal, then they clearly did not have standing in the trial.

Which means this case would have to start all over again from the beginning. Which may very well be the goal of the ninth circuit. ( This trial judge really butchered up this decision and trial. The circuit would love to set it all aside on a technality that does not trash what that judge wrote. )

Freddy on September 10, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Unasked and unanswered are these “where do we go from here?” questions the senators should have posed: If Congress changes the law and allows overtly practicing homosexuals in the ranks, should NAMBLA members be allowed to serve? Will those who advocate abolishing “age of consent” laws be allowed to don uniforms? Will the military have to acknowledge same-sex marriages? If so, will military chaplains be required to perform such rituals? Will same-sex couples be entitled to military housing? Will these couples be allowed to serve in the same unit or aboard the same ship?
http://townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2010/02/05/military_lab_rats/page/full/

Bullhead on September 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM

@Catmann I understand your point the law is clear but you are failing to account for the many gays that join the military to prove that they aren’t gay only to find that faith or understanding doesn’t matter. Still unless your gay you probably couldn’t understand that.
Still what is the issue with a citizen seeking to overturn a law based on the rule of law?

Zekecorlain on September 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Where is it in our constitution that guarentees the “right ” to serve in the military?

Bullhead on September 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM

Zekecorlain on September 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Frankly, if you understand that the law is clear, you should understand everything else – especially personal feelings – is irrelevant. If you spent time in the military, you understand that.

I understand people join the military for many reasons. I spent 22 years in the USAF, the last seven working with basic trainees.

There is nothing wrong with anyone trying to change a law. But do it the right way. Activist and advocate judges are not going to endear your point of view to anyone as this thread shows. Additionally, judges don’t set military policy or law, Congress does.

It really is this simple:

DADT is the ‘law of the land’ as it were. Until such time as Congress repeals it and amends the UCMJ, gays seeking to enter military service either A) shouldn’t or B) do so understanding what they will have to live with until such time as DADT is (or is not) repealed.

Debating endlessly about military housing and bunks and showers and ‘personal feelings’, though at times interesting, really is irrelevant. All of these peripheral issue will be dealt with over time, if not immediately, just as issues with racially integrating the forces were.

catmman on September 10, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Hanging it up for the night.

G’night everybody!

catmman on September 10, 2010 at 12:28 AM

you are failing to account for the many gays that join the military to prove that they aren’t gay

And that’s why gays shouldn’t be in the military…the last thing we need are more mentally unstable people in the military.

xblade on September 10, 2010 at 12:40 AM

I have a question for all the Attorney’s out there.

Attorney’s always say that it doesn’t matter if you are defending a baby rapist, you must give your client the benefit of the best of the legal system in order to respect it.

Is that what the DOJ Attorneys did?

barnone on September 10, 2010 at 12:43 AM

What I find interesting is that the DOJ felt the need to tank this case and get cover from a judge declaring the policy unconstitutional.

I’m fairly certain that DADT was the result of an EXECUTIVE ORDER by Clinton and that Obama could simply issue a new EO countermanding the previous one if he chose to do so. However, he appears to be too big a p*ssy to do so and, instead, wants cover for his decision.

teke184 on September 10, 2010 at 12:54 AM

the last thing we need are more mentally unstable people in the military.

xblade on September 10, 2010 at 12:40 AM

back the F off Fred Phelps.

John the Libertarian on September 10, 2010 at 1:00 AM

the last thing we need are more mentally unstable people in the military.

xblade on September 10, 2010 at 12:40 AM

back the F off Fred Phelps.

John the Libertarian on September 10, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Blame Spc. Bradley Manning for that assertion, IMHO. He’s the poster-child for why people will make accusations that gay servicepeople are security risks for a long time to come.

teke184 on September 10, 2010 at 1:11 AM

Since this decision applies only within the Central District of California, you can now be as gay as the day is long pretty much only at the Los Angeles Air Force Base.

Yay.

greenonions on September 10, 2010 at 1:46 AM

*facepalm*
And some people call this a Christian nation.

itsnotaboutme on September 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Being Christian is does not entail wanting to force other people to be Christian, or to try to bully them out of their job on account of their chosen lifestyle.

And our government has never been Christian, since it’s founding, nor should it be.

RINO in Name Only on September 10, 2010 at 2:17 AM

I’m not ready to throw in the towel on this issue yet? Passing the Equal Rights Amendment was also said to be inevitable until people became more aware of its more pernicious implications.

And repealing DADT has lots of pernicious implications. Don’t we owe it to our troops not to inflict this on them? The tail is wagging the dog.

DaMav on September 10, 2010 at 2:57 AM

So can some judge tell us we have to keep fat bodies on duty?

You bet he/she/it can, just watch.

Why can’t the elderly serve? There are plenty of grannies who can tote a machine gun.

Why can’t single moms tote their toddlers in a papoose when they’re dealing with our incomprehensible ROEs?

Multi-tasking.

How about drunks? Military service probably drove them to drink anyway.

And why not druggies, child-molestors, no-loads and other freaks?

Our military mission is secondary to everyone feeling good about themselves. Thanks judge!

NoDonkey on September 10, 2010 at 3:53 AM

Old: Don’t ask; don’t tell
New: Accessorize!

Bevan on September 10, 2010 at 5:18 AM

So, California isn’t satisfied with flushing their own state down the moral cesspool. Their District court Judges feel bound to impose it on the rest of the country. What a hell hole.

tommyboy on September 10, 2010 at 7:22 AM

So “I don’t like it”
Means “Unconstitutional”
In California…

Haiku Guy on September 10, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Too bad the proponents of Prop 8 didn’t put in a automatic standing for anyone who voted for Prop 8 to defend it.
As for the populace, this should give a boost to repubs running for office. Again, unelected judges deciding what’s best. Also not good for Obama that he doesn’t want to enforce the laws on the books. Imagine if Bush summarily decided not to enforce the EPA laws? Oh but then the Courts would rule that because a repub didn’t enforce the laws, the Courts would have to do it in his stead. Libs always force their agenda down the throats of Americans.

eaglewingz08 on September 10, 2010 at 7:51 AM

The ruling is expected to intensify political pressure in Washington to act on legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which remains stalled in the Senate despite support from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership.

President Obama could have issued an Executive Order to eliminate DADT on the limo ride from the Capitol to the White House on Inaugeration Day. He is ducking this issue, as he has so many others, by letting Congress take the lead and take the heat.

Haiku Guy on September 10, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Let’s leave “Judgment day” to God. In the end, He’ll sort it out according to his will, not ours.

BruthaMan on September 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Right, let’s never again say anything about whether anyone is right or wrong.

Being Christian is does not entail wanting to force other people to be Christian, or to try to bully them out of their job on account of their chosen lifestyle.

RINO in Name Only on September 10, 2010 at 2:17 AM

It’s impossible to force someone into being a Christian. Who said anything about that?
We’re not talking about just any job. If you want to sleep & shower with people who are sexually attracted to you, you have that legal right, but it’s not right to “force” your lack of discretion on others.

itsnotaboutme on September 10, 2010 at 8:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2