Federal judge halts enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” worldwide

posted at 4:52 pm on October 12, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not surprising. Remember, she’s already ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. The lingering question was whether it was unconstitutional only for the named plaintiffs in the case — i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans — or whether it’s unconstitutional for everyone. Surprise: “Unconstitutional” means unconstitutional.

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the U.S. military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops…

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips’ ruling stand…

“The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country,” said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

Decision time for The One: Does he appeal or not? If he decides not to, he’ll undercut Gates’s insistence that no action should be taken on the policy until the Pentagon completes its review of the effects on readiness. If he does appeal, he’ll antagonize the lefties (especially young voters) whom he needs to turn out next month. The obvious solution is to punt and avoid a decision until after the election, but I’m not sure liberals will let him get away with that. What if the “professional left” mobilizes and demands a decision before November 2? Prediction: Heart-ache at the Pentagon.

Exit question: Is this actually a blessing in disguise for the GOP? We may well have a Republican majority in the Senate next year, and without this decision the survival of DADT would fall mainly on them. Their inclination will be to satisfy the social-con base and vote to keep it, but that would put them on the wrong side of public opinion (including Republican opinion) and would instantly destroy any chance of rapprochement with gay voters. The judge let them off the hook by taking the issue out of their hands. Abortion redux!


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 5 6 7

And here, at Hot Air, the pro-gay lobby doesn’t care about good soldiers, they care about mainstreaming homosexuality.

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 7:00 AM

Aw c’mon. Most gays live regular lives just like me and you. They love America and serve proudly. The radical gay lobby has done a disservice to others by presenting a militant image of gays.

The issue I have is not gays serving openly, it’s the radical and militant gays serving at all. I don’t want any leftist nut serving in the military, gay, straight, white, black, male, female. Their goal is not to serve but disrupt … create chaos and discontent and lower the morale and fighting ability.

I mean Good Lord, look what political correctness has done already to the military. The left doesn’t care about gays, just like it doesn’t care about blacks or women, it just uses them them to advance it’s goals and attacking the military is surely one of them.

darwin on October 13, 2010 at 7:50 AM

The Judge’s ruling has no bearing on military policy whatsoever, just like the Pentagon said when she orginally came to this decision.
Gays shoud be happy because if her ruling did have an effect, then DADT would be cancelled and their wouldnt be protections for gays at all for dismissal.
It’s another section of military policy that restricts gays from the military, not DADT..which actually prevents dismissal on the grounds of homosexuality alone.

LeeSeneca on October 13, 2010 at 8:03 AM

darwin on October 13, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Aw c’mon. Most gays live regular lives just like me and you. They love America and serve proudly. The radical gay lobby has done a disservice to others by presenting a militant image of gays.

Snivel sob BS. “It’s not our fault it’s the radicals” Please notice the Log Cabin Republicans applauded this decision. Hardly the militant homosexual lobby there. Although you parsed what I said to Hawkdriver, I will repeat it, homosexuality by itself, does not get one kicked out of the military, it’s bad conduct. No one, in 8 hours, has refuted my claim that AR 635-200 Chapter 15-2(4) can allow homosexuals to serve, and no one will.

The issue I have is not gays serving openly, it’s the radical and militant gays serving at all. I don’t want any leftist nut serving in the military, gay, straight, white, black, male, female. Their goal is not to serve but disrupt … create chaos and discontent and lower the morale and fighting ability.

And as I stated it’s not about gays in the military, it’s about power, mainstreaming homosexuality.

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 9:05 AM

She’s just hoping her ruling will help her meet chicks.

Akzed on October 13, 2010 at 9:10 AM

@hawkdriver sadly Right4life called me a fascist simple for disagreeing with me after i clearly stated I was a humanist. Nor at anytime did I promote a fascist agenda in this thread. He/she does it all the time. It’s just what he does.

Zekecorlain on October 12, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I called you and the gay movement fascist because of their desire to stamp out rights for those who disagree with them. you sure support denying the right of catholic charities to practice their faith. and whether they receive state money or not has no bearing upon their constitutional rights.

nice lie, I didn’t call you a fascist for being a humanist.

right4life on October 13, 2010 at 9:13 AM

She’s just hoping her ruling will help her meet chicks.

Akzed on October 13, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Oddly enough, the female homosexuals are kind of collateral damage in the whole thing. I don’t think that kind of behavior has every really been a problem for the military the way that male homosexual behavior has (radical feminist grandstanding aside).

Count to 10 on October 13, 2010 at 9:50 AM

DADT protected the military from sue-happy ACT-UP goldbricks.
Now that that protection is gone, our services will be gutted with lawsuits and protected status for creeps who hate the military and look to destroy it from within.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Romans

The last line…I think we are too far gone to change this.

We are coming up on 40 years since we’ve made it lawful to murder millions upon millions of unborn human beings. If that isn’t worshipping and serving the creature over the creator, or doing what is unclean and dishonoring our bodies (and that of the unborn), I don’t know what is. Is it a coincidence that homosexuality becomes so prominent now, at the end of that 40 years. Read Romans. Paul could have been writing to us, and I think he was.

The 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade will occur within days of the next presidential inauguration. 40…40 years in the desert…40 is a key number. I can’t help but think we are at our last chance, as a civilization, to choose the way of life (which does not include homosexual practice) or the way of death.

God have mercy.

pannw on October 13, 2010 at 9:57 AM

homosexuality is not an inborn condition, its not genetic, or it would have been bred out of the population long ago.

right4life on October 12, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Fallacious reasoning, not wanting to have straight sex is not the same thing as the -inability- to have straight sex and procreate, as many straight women have learned to their distress.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Fallacious reasoning, not wanting to have straight sex is not the same thing as the -inability- to have straight sex and procreate, as many straight women have learned to their distress.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM

you do know that you just agreed with me right? homosexuality is a choice, obviously. since they have sex with straight women.

right4life on October 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Your reasoning is fallacious. Homosexuals have a lot less hetero sex, and thus, produce a lot fewer offspring per capita than heteros. Over time, were homosexuality a genetic condition, gays would have long since vanished by now.

Really Right on October 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Way late to this party, but my enduring reaction to this judge, if not necessarily just this decision, is that this is why very few Americans have any respect for the judiciary.

It is arbitrary and capricious. More than a lack of respect, I am developing a serious contempt for liberal judges. They are insidious vermin.

OR

Lefty Federal judges dictating U.S. military policy — what could possibly go wrong?!

Jaibones on October 13, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Fallacious reasoning, not wanting to have straight sex is not the same thing as the -inability- to have straight sex and procreate, as many straight women have learned to their distress.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 9:59 AM

You don’t see how that undermines your own argument, do you?

Count to 10 on October 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Your reasoning is fallacious. Homosexuals have a lot less hetero sex, and thus, produce a lot fewer offspring per capita than heteros. Over time, were homosexuality a genetic condition, gays would have long since vanished by now.

Really Right on October 13, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Now, perhaps, but not in the pre-welfare state past. I don’t believe that homosexuality is genetic, either, but this is a dumb argument.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 10:21 AM

You don’t see how that undermines your own argument, do you?

Count to 10 on October 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM

No, there are other reasons besides direct sexual preference to procreate. Lesbians used to have meaningless one-nigh-stand sex with men in order to have children before the advent of common in vitro fertilization.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Dishonorable discharge.

andycanuck on October 13, 2010 at 10:26 AM

1. What will happen to christian chaplains who preach from 1 Corinthians 6, Leviticus 18 or 20, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1 and make direct reference to homosexuality by the mere fact that he reads these passages while preaching? Why put him in the position to have to choose between his faith and Army policy?
2. Where will homosexual men live? Will lesbian women live with heterosexual women? Men and women can’t live together, so what do you do? Give each Soldier his/her own room? Logistically this isn’t possible and is against unit cohesion anyway. We’re trying to build teams of warfighters, not individuals. There is no such thing as a one-man fire team.
3. DADT allows me to tolerate whatever sexual preferences my Soldiers or superiors may have because it’s none of my business and isn’t made my business. The problem arises that we’re moving from toleration to forced acceptance. If my religion precludes me from accepting homosexuality as moral behavior, then I’m nothing more than a walking “EO violation” (e.g. Equal Opportunity), according to the Army. If this be the case, then any time I take unfavorable administrative action against a Soldier, and that Soldier happens to be homosexual, then I’ll continually have to waste my time explaining to my superiors and the inspector general that my actions would have been the same had it been a heterosexual Soldier. This wastes everyone’s time and is detrimental to good order and discipline.

Send_Me on October 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM

“1. What will happen to christian chaplains who preach from 1 Corinthians 6, Leviticus 18 or 20, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1 and make direct reference to homosexuality by the mere fact that he reads these passages while preaching? Why put him in the position to have to choose between his faith and Army policy?”
M

The post right above yours gives you an answer.

“2. Where will homosexual men live? Will lesbian women live with heterosexual women? Men and women can’t live together, so what do you do? Give each Soldier his/her own room? Logistically this isn’t possible and is against unit cohesion anyway. We’re trying to build teams of warfighters, not individuals. There is no such thing as a one-man fire team.”

Send_Me on October 13, 2010 at 10:49

If we could cashier the ACT-UP goldbrick barracks lawyer filth, I would have no problem with sensible and patriotic gays and lesbians serving. That’s the reason for DADT in the first d@mn place!

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 11:00 AM

3. DADT allows me to tolerate whatever sexual preferences my Soldiers or superiors may have because it’s none of my business and isn’t made my business. The problem arises that we’re moving from toleration to forced acceptance. If my religion precludes me from accepting homosexuality as moral behavior, then I’m nothing more than a walking “EO violation” (e.g. Equal Opportunity), according to the Army. If this be the case, then any time I take unfavorable administrative action against a Soldier, and that Soldier happens to be homosexual, then I’ll continually have to waste my time explaining to my superiors and the inspector general that my actions would have been the same had it been a heterosexual Soldier. This wastes everyone’s time and is detrimental to good order and discipline.

Send_Me on October 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Precisely, comparing it to the segregation of African Americans is a gross and insulting dis-analogy. During the Revolutionary War, there were integrated units and the Navy also didn’t segregate in the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars, so we had historical evidence that desegregation would work. Also, in that context, troublemakers who disrupted the service (virtually all of whom were OPPONENTS of the policy) could be tossed out on their ear, not so now.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Gee, what other rights did this judge give us? Can service members “blow off” (pardon the pun) orders and duties if they conflict with “free speech”? “Freedom of Association”? “Due Process”? Can they tell the Master Chief they think he’s an A-hole? Maybe she can “redefine” what constitutes good order and discipline in a way she thinks fit? And constrain her decision to gays? Why not transvestites and transsexuals? Why not pedophiles and necrophiliacs? Practioners of beastiality? If you’re gonna crack the door open, you might as well open it all the way.

olesparkie on October 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Another victory for lawyers and progressives.

This is such a dumb issue in so many ways. What the heck does openly gay mean anyway?

If your need is to be openly gay, you don’t belong in the military. You’re either a soldier or you aren’t.

This won’t change anything, it will just mean that people now will be able to run off to the IG and claim they are being discriminated when they don’t get promoted – or – when they don’t like someone and suddenly get offended by comments – or – get stuck on some lousy detail – and on and on…

This is all about politics (funny how these issues come to a head in election years).

A complete waste of time and effort.

reaganaut on October 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM

This is all about politics (funny how these issues come to a head in election years).

A complete waste of time and effort.

reaganaut on October 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM

No, it’s about destroying America.

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Clarification:

“(virtually all of whom were OPPONENTS of the policy -of desegregation-)”

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM

LincolntheHun on October 13, 2010 at 7:00 AM

Yeah, I actually had an early show, but when you see charges thrown at Hot Air regulars you have to go to bat. Zeke was rude and impolite. He claimed that he was reacting to death threats and massive calls for insurrection by our Hot Air brothers and sisters. Had to stay till he gave up. Nobody beats up on Hot Air regulars except for other Hot AIr regulars. Nobody!

I also was compelled to stay to see if any other fool was going to admit to eating the throw-away components from MREs besides you and me.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was a compromise. It said that even though being gay was considered incompatible with military service, as long as you kept it private, you would be left alone.

Of course, it was obvious from the moment it was suggested that this would be a temporary thing. The conservatives who agreed to this compromise were surrendering on the issue.

Once again, we have judges claiming authority that is in no way given to them by the Constitution, but since they have claimed the mantle of having exclusive say in interpreting the Constitution, they’re getting away with it. I have a bad feeling that if we don’t get some Constitutional amendment stripping judges of this power or sharply limiting it, our country will not make it much longer.

Does that sound like an overstatement? Consider this: federal judges are telling the Commander in chief that he can’t do military tribunals of captured terrorists, and that he can’t restrict who is in the military. When the courts get involved in issues of national defense, then our national defense is compromised. When people captured on the battlefield must be given Miranda rights, granted habeas corpus, and put on civilian trials with the right to face their accusers, requiring those who caught them on the battlefield to leave the battlefield and put in a court appearance, or release the prisoner….. The handwriting is on the wall.

Imagine a world in which abortion had to be settled by Congress and the States, not by a judge inventing a never-before-found Constitutional right. Why, that would be the same world where judges don’t grant habeas corpus to terrorists captured on the battlefield, or declare the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, or turn eminent domain into a right to take away the property of one individual and give it to another or a corporation that can pay more in taxes!

tom on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Maybe if the military made the uniforms uglier the problem would disappear.

/s

profitsbeard on October 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM

on a related note….looks like the saudis are down with OPP…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8059246/Saudi-Prince-slept-in-double-bed-with-manservant.html

ted c on October 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM

All they want is to be left alone. NOT!

Akzed on October 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM

The left needs to be stopped, period. Even when they lose a case, the succeed in punishment by process.

Feedie on October 13, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I have a bad feeling that if we don’t get some Constitutional amendment stripping judges of this power or sharply limiting it, our country will not make it much longer.
tom on October 13, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. … Congress also used its Article III power to order completion of a fence on our southern border near San Diego which had been held up for ten years by environmental lawsuits. By the REAL ID Act of 2005, which took effect May 11, 2005, Congress legislated that the fence should go forward with “expeditious construction” and that “no court … shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim” to stop it.

The power is there. We need a Congress to use it and ignore the caterwauling of the left. There is another remedy besides impeachment, too: abolish.

Feedie on October 13, 2010 at 4:22 PM

not gonna waste another night on this, one was enough. right4life my reply to you is still on page 4 last comment. @hawkdriver you said no one said either of those things and I was only able to find the insurrection so it’s 1/1. Plus I’m a regular on all the gay threads anywho.
I guess it’s five pm central so we’re back to “activist judges” ruling on cases!!! Pretty sure we covered this on pages 2-4.

@ebrown2 your religion tells you not to kill what are you doing in the military in the first place? Straight out no exceptions.
@Feedie, don’t strain yourself but maybe pick up a book other than MeinKampf sometime, turns out there are branches of the government.

See ya on some other thread I’m gonna go hit traffic.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Truly a class act. Low, but still class.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM

not gonna waste another night on this, one was enough. right4life my reply to you is still on page 4 last comment.

uh huh ‘christian nazi’ huh? you do know that Hitler threw hundreds of thousands of christians into concentration camps and started his own church right?

why couldn’t you be a humanist fascist? that makes no sense at all, but then nothing you have posted makes much sense. a humanist doesn’t believe in God, and we’ve seen the results of that in the last century with over 100 million dead…so many more enslaved.

right4life on October 13, 2010 at 7:26 PM

pick up a book other than MeinKampf sometime, turns out there are branches of the government.

Article III, Section 2 + Jefferson + Madison = Mein Kamph.
So revealing of a troll to verify leftist delusion and intentions.

Feedie on October 13, 2010 at 8:10 PM

@hawkdriver you said no one said either of those things and I was only able to find the insurrection so it’s 1/1.

Zekecorlain on October 13, 2010 at 5:59 PM

So you made up the one comment and exaggerated greatly the other. Zeke, I’m proud that you at least admit owe up to what you did.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Truly a class act. Low, but still class.

applebutter on October 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM

He “assumes” and you know what that makes him! :> (not me)

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 8:18 PM

So you made up the one comment and exaggerated greatly the other. Zeke, I’m proud that you at least admit owe up to what you did.

hawkdriver on October 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM

You’re dissing his Andy S., the Slow-witted Bear impersonation?

ebrown2 on October 13, 2010 at 10:06 PM

This ruling is going to undermine moral if enforced. It will be a PR nightmare for the DOD.

Think about it, war is boring, kids do stupid shit. Now, imagine what will happen if an openly gay man joins an infantry platoon.

This has disaster written all over it. The public is wrong, unit cohesion is an imperative, especially in a prolonged war.

Cr4sh Dummy on October 14, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7