Breaking: Federal appeals court reinstitutes “don’t ask, don’t tell”

posted at 7:53 pm on October 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

That was fast.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted the Obama administration’s request for a temporary freeze of a California-based federal judge’s order telling the military to stop enforcing the policy…

Government lawyers sought to suspend the ruling while appeals were pending, arguing that it would pose a major problem for the military. They said it could encourage service members to reveal their sexual orientation before the issue is fully decided.

Not a tough issue legally — remember the point yesterday about troops being in legal limbo — but The One’s going to have some ‘splaining to do to lefties exhilarated by the fact that, for the first time in U.S. history, openly gay people could sign up to serve. Good luck, champ.

Meanwhile, at CBS, a new poll shows an eight-point drop in support for repealing DADT in just two months. I think I know why, but let’s see.

Support has dropped eight points since August, when 64 percent said they supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. (It now stands roughly where it did in February.) Since the August poll, Senate Republicans blocked efforts to set the stage for a legislative repeal of the policy and a district judge ordered that the policy no longer be enforced, a ruling being appealed by the government…

The new poll, taken between October 6th and 8th, found that 56 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, while 31 percent oppose letting them do so.

Democrats and independents favored allowing gay troops to serve by wide margins. (65 percent to 27 percent in the case of Democrats, and 55 percent to 27 percent for independents.) Republicans were split on the question

Asked if gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military – not if they should serve openly, but if they should serve at all – nearly seven in ten Americans said yes. Sixty-nine percent favor gays and lesbians serving in the military, while 21 percent oppose allowing them to serve.

It’s got to be the court ruling, right? That came on September 9, the midpoint between this poll and the last one. Voila — eight points of support for repeal right off the top. I’ve always thought that court challenges are a counterproductive way for gays to fight for rights since (a) the public doesn’t like to see issues that are being addressed democratically taken out of the voters’ hands and (b) gays are bound to win at the polls eventually anyway, in which case there’s no sense in giving their opponents the chance to claim they were cheated by a judge. The idea of judicial diktat deciding “don’t ask, don’t tell” is doubly abrasive, in fact, because it touches on military policy, with some voters bound to worry that a robed egghead who doesn’t know much about how the Army runs is uniquely poorly positioned to institute sweeping changes on personnel throughout the branches. Frankly, I’m surprised that there’s still majority support now.

As for why support for repeal spiked from 58 percent in February to 64 percent in August, I think it’s because Gates and Mullen testified in favor of repealing DADT back in February and then the House passed the repeal in May subject to the Pentagon’s final review of the policy. That’s the way people like to see military matters handled, with the generals at the forefront and the legislature making the final decision. The good news for supporters of DADT is that you may see further erosion in public support if the court ruling gets appealed and is upheld by the Supreme Court. The bad news is that, er, in that case the policy will be dead for good. But then, it’ll be dead for good soon enough anyway: The Pentagon’s review, overseen by Gates and Mullen, is almost sure to support some sort of gradual integration of openly gay servicemen.

From last night’s Anderson Cooper, here’s Dan Choi on signing up again for service. His reenlistement lasted a day.


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

So.. what about the kids that signed up for the Military while this was going on?

upinak on October 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM

Well. I’ll just stamp my foot.

There.

davidk on October 20, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Full arousal followed by a deflating, limp reality.

Metro on October 20, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Wow, the 9th Circuit got one right? Color me shocked.

Ed Morrissey on October 20, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Such a lot of fuss over such a small thing group.

OldEnglish on October 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM

So.. what about the kids that signed up for the Military while this was going on?

upinak on October 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM

they were warned and pretty stupid in the first place if they thought they were free to enlist without worry… so not people I want handling heavy weapons.

Kaptain Amerika on October 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM

And, Constitutionally, can the court tell the military what to do or not do?

coldwarrior on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Getting tired of the Courts doing these things. Let the Generals make their positions known.

bluemarlin on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

That this penetrating reality comes so prematurely after such a climax of victory leads me to believe that this setback will be a real blow to gay rights advocates.

Metro on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Stimulus package rescinded.

heartache
/

ted c on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Wow, the 9th Circuit got one right? Color me shocked.

Ed Morrissey on October 20, 2010 at 7:58 PM

tomorrow’s a new day, Ed. I’m sure that there’ll be cars turned over, shouts of bigots and intolerance and voila’—- we’ll all be back in Utopia in no time…

ted c on October 20, 2010 at 8:03 PM

The 9th Circuit knows that Barry fully intends to STOP DADT, he just needs more time to coordinate with the Pentagon to make all his girlish dreams come true. The 9th gave the president what he wanted. It’s not over and HE will be the one to overturn DADT for the utmost political expediency.

HornetSting on October 20, 2010 at 8:03 PM

DAMN NEO CONS!

Metro on October 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Regardless of how you feel about DADT, this should come as good news to you.

It’s way past time the judiciary learned its proper bounds. Some powers are best left to the executive and/or legislative.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

The kids that “signed up” are nothing more than civilians awaiting processing at the nearest MEPS center. What happens to them? They go back to whatever they were doing on Monday.

BKeyser on October 20, 2010 at 8:06 PM

And, Constitutionally, can the court tell the military what to do or not do?

coldwarrior on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

It can not.

Regardless of how you feel about DADT, this should come as good news to you.

It’s way past time the judiciary learned its proper bounds. Some powers are best left to the executive and/or legislative.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Indeed.

Jenfidel on October 20, 2010 at 8:07 PM

I for one am relieved. I have to pass a Navy recruiting office on my way to work and the line this morning was spilling onto the streets and blocking traffic….

Venusian Visitor on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

It’s way past time the judiciary learned its proper bounds. Some powers are best left to the executive and/or legislative.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

this is true. Congress has a check upon the court insofar as it can rescind its jurisdiction on matters, however, Congress hasn’t done so in over a century IIRC.

ted c on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

And, Constitutionally, can the court tell the military what to do or not do?

coldwarrior on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

How many divisions can the court muster?

Oldnuke on October 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I for one am relieved. I have to pass a Navy recruiting office on my way to work and the line this morning was spilling onto the streets and blocking traffic….

Venusian Visitor on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Was that the office on Folsom Street next to the YMCA?

malclave on October 20, 2010 at 8:12 PM

And, Constitutionally, can the court tell the military what to do or not do?

coldwarrior on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

How many divisions can the court muster?

Oldnuke on October 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM

I’m sure the courts can be very divisive.

malclave on October 20, 2010 at 8:13 PM

One district judge has that much power. Hmm. Let’s hope that same judge doesn’t allow confiscation of IRAS and 401K by the commerce clause.

NaCly dog on October 20, 2010 at 8:14 PM

The Pentagon’s review, overseen by Gates and Mullen, is almost sure to support some sort of gradual integration of openly gay servicemen.

.
AP, I have given you chapter and verse, the actual regulation that allow gays, even openly gay army folk, to serve, what it doesn’t allow is people to be a disruption.
If there is a compromise DADT, that’s what it will most likely be, a secular don’t hate the sinner, hate the sin.
Gay and non-disruptive -cool
Gay and a problem child – yer outta there.
Just like everyone else.

LincolntheHun on October 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Venusian Visitor on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Was it a gay pride parade?

azkenreid on October 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM

That sucks.

SurferDoc on October 20, 2010 at 8:16 PM

How many divisions can the court muster?

Oldnuke on October 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM

.
I agree in principle, but relying on quotes from Stalin against the Pope? Brrrr

LincolntheHun on October 20, 2010 at 8:17 PM

So.. what about the kids that signed up for the Military while this was going on?

upinak on October 20, 2010 at 7:55 PM

I have a feeling that although the brass told recruiters to accept “openly gay volunteers” not many were signed up.

Military recruiters are very creative.

davidk on October 20, 2010 at 8:19 PM

The 9th Circuit knows that Barry fully intends to STOP DADT, he just needs more time to coordinate with the Pentagon to make all his girlish dreams come true.

HornetSting on October 20, 2010 at 8:03 PM

My guess is that Obama *really* wants to take credit for this as a milestone of his presidency and he’s not willing to share that credit or perceived success with the court. The court is threatening his personal glory and as such, he’s fighting so that the court doesn’t get the credit, so he can take it for himself.

BruthaMan on October 20, 2010 at 8:20 PM

That sucks.

SurferDoc on October 20, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I almost baptised my moniter.

davidk on October 20, 2010 at 8:21 PM

“Whatever it is, I’m against it.”
–Professor Wagstaff.

Emperor Norton on October 20, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Honestly, what did the judge think would happen?

Emily M. on October 20, 2010 at 8:25 PM

The bad news is that, er, in that case the policy will be dead for good.

WRONG AP!!!

If defenders of the military can just make it to 3 Jan 2011, this talk of repealing the Legislation will be dead for good. There is NO RIGHT to serve in the military. Military Personnel issues where punitive actions are not at stake (an Honorable Discharge for open homosexuality IS NOT punitive) have no place in civilian courts.

AP, you are on the wrong side of those who believe in a strong American military.

In fact, the more the American Public focuses on this issue, the more they will support upholding the necessity of the military’s right to make military decisions.

HDFOB on October 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM

This is a big mess. How is it that 2.3% of the population wields such a big stick (no pun intended)?

The Expert Knows
http://theexpertsblog.blogspot.com

HotAirExpert on October 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Bawney Fwank was hardest hit

MikeA on October 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Does anyone know what the impetus was for John Conyers, Gerry Studds and Ted Weis to order the GAO to investigate the cost of denying homosexuals in the military in the first place? This issue has been going on way to long to make it a priority when the country is in the middle of elections and especially the GWOT.

fourdeucer on October 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Barney Fwanks seat is still not safe.

wepeople on October 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Sixty-nine percent favor gays and lesbians serving in the military, while 21 percent oppose allowing them to serve.

The “true con” representation.

Vyce on October 20, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Boot camp just got less interesting.

Bishop on October 20, 2010 at 8:37 PM

As for why support for repeal spiked from 58 percent in February to 64 percent in August, I think it’s because Gates and Mullen testified in favor of repealing DADT

And the fact that the Marine Corps Commandant as well as an Army General coming out against it means what, Allah?

I think your 6 point difference is based on wishful thinking.

I’m still interested in WHAT THE TROOPS THINK. You know, the one’s who will have to LIVE with this social experiment.

GarandFan on October 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM

I’m still interested in WHAT THE TROOPS THINK. You know, the one’s who will have to LIVE with this social experiment.

GarandFan on October 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM

This. I was going to post “who has a say in this other than the troops?”

Who is John Galt on October 20, 2010 at 8:48 PM

And Anderson Cooper and Rachel Madcow cry.

thekingtut on October 20, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I’m still interested in WHAT THE TROOPS THINK. You know, the one’s who will have to LIVE with this social experiment.

Outgoing Marine Corps Commandant General Conway gave a going-away speech to assorted Marines, sailors, and civilian employees on board Quantico, VA, yesterday, 19 Oct.

In it, General Conway told us that he and the SgtMaj of the USMC had been going around speaking to large groups of Marines/sailors over the last 6 months. Among the issues he says he spoke about is of open gays serving in the Marine Corps. General Conway would ask for a show of hands of who was for/against repealing DADT. He and the SgtMaj estimated that 90% were AGAINST repealing DADT.

So you know what AP, back-off.

HDFOB on October 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Who is John Galt on October 20, 2010 at 8:48 PM
GarandFan on October 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM

I’ve made my opinion known in these threads and find that your’re in the minority if you really care what we think. Guys like Jimbo3 have in as much said if I don’t like it, I should GTF out.

hawkdriver on October 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM

I agree in principle, but relying on quotes from Stalin against the Pope? Brrrr

LincolntheHun on October 20, 2010 at 8:17 PM

I’ve been told that I have a warped sense of humor. Sometimes I even believe it myself :-)

Oldnuke on October 20, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Wow. The homosexual community is never going to forgive Obama for setting this shot up. There goes a few more votes in 2012.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Asked if gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military – not if they should serve openly, but if they should serve at all – nearly seven in ten Americans said yes. Sixty-nine percent favor gays and lesbians serving in the military, while 21 percent oppose allowing them to serve.

I wonder if the numbers change much if you break it down further to homosexual men serving vs homosexual women serving.
You’d have to control some for the people that don’t think women should be serving at all, though.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Barry is mad that the court took his ‘Historical” act out of his hand.

Looks like he wants the Emancipation Act of 1833 reversed as well, and put the blacks back into bondage. He will then free them by reading the Obama’s All is Free (if you make less than $250,000) Act off the teleprompter and goes down on history (instead of Larry Sinclair).

bayview on October 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Wow, the 9th Circuit got one right? Color me shocked.

It’s nothing to be shocked about, Ed; just a statistical anomaly. Although it has never actually happened to me, we all suffer a finite probability that our views may someday align with the 9th Circuit, Obama, and the Taliban. But if such a strange thing were ever to happen to me, I’d spend some time trying to learn from it, rather than celebrating.

In any case, this reversal vindicates everyone who hates judicial activism. You can always find a judge from a parallel universe.

((Sorry, I still can’t figure out how to quote comments.))

HelenW on October 20, 2010 at 9:02 PM

I’ve made my opinion known in these threads and find that your’re in the minority if you really care what we think. Guys like Jimbo3 have in as much said if I don’t like it, I should GTF out.

hawkdriver on October 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM

The Internet isn’t reality. Most people would credit the men serving and the military brass (in that order) as having a better perspective than anyone else.

Jimbo3 is a semi-troll.

sharrukin on October 20, 2010 at 9:02 PM

PRemature ejaculation, indeed.

rayra on October 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Are ya IN or are ya OUT? THAT’s the question a court cannot answer!

leftnomore on October 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM

I’ve made my opinion known in these threads and find that your’re in the minority if you really care what we think. Guys like Jimbo3 have in as much said if I don’t like it, I should GTF out.

hawkdriver on October 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM

It makes most sense to me if the rules for this kind of thing can be decided at as low a level (pay grade) as possible, but I would understand if non-uniform rules would lead to too many problems.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I’m still interested in WHAT THE TROOPS THINK. You know, the one’s who will have to LIVE with this social experiment.

GarandFan on October 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM

.
.
Do you realy think that report will reflect what the troops think?
The one where you have to log in via AKO with your name rank SSN and current unit, before you can answer the questions?
The one where the methodolgy is being kept secret?

LincolntheHun on October 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Wow. The homosexual community is never going to forgive Obama for setting this shot up. There goes a few more votes in 2012.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Lord willing. He’s certainly not been a friend to gay interests.

Vyce on October 20, 2010 at 9:35 PM

Here’s how I think this folly will impair military readiness: a lot of homosexuals and lesbians will sign up for the military, not to serve, but to make a sociological point. They will find themselves unwilling to do the military duty and, like that young lady who fought so hard to get into VMI, opt out by claiming conscientious objector status. When we expect to have committed people defending us, we will have instead unwilling people who were only joining to underline the achievement of another goal in their cause.

The few homosexuals and lesbians who are seriously interested in the military, will be negatively affected by this.

SilentWatcher on October 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM

It’s way past time the judiciary learned its proper bounds. Some powers are best left to the executive and/or legislative.

JohnGalt23 on October 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

this is true. Congress has a check upon the court insofar as it can rescind its jurisdiction on matters, however, Congress hasn’t done so in over a century IIRC.

ted c on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Congress actually did it recently during the Bush administration, passing a law stating that only the DC Circuit court — not even the Supreme Court — had any jurisdiction over detainees in the War on Terror.

The Supreme Court proceeded to ignore Congress and issue its ruling that detainees could sue for habeas corpus.

Apparently, there is no real limit to the Supreme Court. They can just declare any law restricting jurisdiction to be unconstitutional and do what they want anyway.

didymus on October 20, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Florida Congressional candidate Allen West has the best answer I have seen on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell issue.

This is a MUST SEE video (2 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVQ14IgCDE8

Crisp and to the point, Allen West explains the military to civilians.

Please elect Allen West to Congress!

http://www.allenwestforcongress.com/

wren on October 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Barney Franks loses his ars, er seat.

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM

wren on October 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Thank-you thank-you thank-you. God bless Allen West.

fourdeucer on October 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM

So what exactly do gays complain about not being able to tell everyone that they are gay in the armed forces?

If you are in the army, then your job is to kill the enemy. I don’t care if the guy or girl on the front line is gay, straight, a hermaphrodite, or what. I just want them to be able to fight. They need to be there to talk strategy, not telling people how gay they are. Don’t ask, Don’t tell is pretty much, who cares what you do when you are home.

The second part to this is that if soldiers are not going to be able to do their job next to homosexuals, then the homosexuals need to stay out. It’s not for me todecide since I am not military. The military has a job and reason for being there. The libs seem to think the military exists for their own little social experiments.

jeffn21 on October 20, 2010 at 10:09 PM

That this penetrating reality comes so prematurely after such a climax of victory leads me to believe that this setback will be a real blow to gay rights advocates.

Metro on October 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM

HaHa… I get it…

jeffn21 on October 20, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Full arousal followed by a deflating, limp reality.

A very strong effort here.

rickyricardo on October 20, 2010 at 10:27 PM

wren on October 20, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Thanks, as usual Col. West makes sense and put things into perspective.

Cindy Munford on October 20, 2010 at 10:43 PM

So.. what about the kids that signed up for the Military while this was going on?

Their contract becomes null and void. As a three combat tour, career soldier I can tell you that the military is no place for social experiments. There is no room for distraction from our mission, i.e. combat.

LTC West stated the position quite well.

CVMA-Dredd on October 20, 2010 at 11:06 PM

The ban is in effect again. Judge just ruled.

lexhamfox on October 20, 2010 at 11:54 PM

A strong chief executive would have won beaucoups props had he immediately slapped back, and instructed the Generals to ignore the civilian court pending determination of jurisdiction. Or better yet, just declare the lack of jurisdiction, and let the SHTF.

Waiting for superman.

bbhack on October 21, 2010 at 12:17 AM

Wow, the 9th Circuit got one right? Color me shocked.

Ed Morrissey on October 20, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Yeah, I was a little shocked too.

ButterflyDragon on October 21, 2010 at 12:45 AM

Camo K-Y jelly stock just plummeted.

profitsbeard on October 21, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Constitutionally, this matter is NONE OF THE BUSINESS of the Court. Command of the military is a power clearly delegated to the President by the Constitution, and neither Congress nor courts should interfere.

Judicial interference weakens our military even if the Commander in Chief happens to be a feckless anti-military Liberal. This is because a military which doesn’t know who’s in charge is paralyzed: this is extremely dangerous.

We can elect a real President in 2012 to fix any Obama-inflicted damage. Meanwhile, everyone on both sides of the aisle should be telling the courts to BUTT OUT of all military matters!!!

landlines on October 21, 2010 at 1:20 AM

gays serving in the military will continue to be a problem until they decide to go mainstream rather than embrace that edgy anti-establishment, I’m so proud persona.

AltTuning on October 21, 2010 at 2:07 AM

Why are they wasting so much time and energy over this foolishness? How many people are we talking about here, anyway? What percentage of gays want to enlist in the armed forces? Is that a greater percentage of gays than straights?

Is our country losing out on some great Scots-Irish-Gay fighting tradition?

disa on October 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM

The new poll, taken between October 6th and 8th, found that 56 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, while 31 percent oppose letting them do so.

Democrats and independents favored allowing gay troops to serve by wide margins. (65 percent to 27 percent in the case of Democrats, and 55 percent to 27 percent for independents.) Republicans were split on the question…

And yet, where it matters — in the military — support for removal of DADT is very, very minor, as in, not even approaching 20% for, what with high majority in service supporting leaving DADT in place.

I don’t know what Mullin and Gates’ problems are but they’re wrong on this. Since no one has YET DEFINED just what, specifically, “openly” MEANS, declaring support for removing DADT is like saying last year that you supported the Pelosi-Obama healthcare monstrosity but didn’t know what was in it (including Congress who voted on ‘it’).

What is taking place is the use of our armed forces as guinea pigs. Mullin and Gates I include as responsible for doing so. Both of them are chasing some “social meme” without regard for personnel morale, functionality, retention of talent or anything else that actually has to DO with the military.

This isn’t an issue about people who want DADT to remain being “homophobic” any more than someone who expects a pair of shoes to fit properly is about hating shoes. It’s about what keeps our military competitive and superior. DADT is about certain people expecting military service to be a pajama party.

If someone has such trouble keeping their business to themselves in the military, they don’t belong IN the military.

Lourdes on October 21, 2010 at 7:20 AM

Why are they wasting so much time and energy over this foolishness? How many people are we talking about here, anyway? What percentage of gays want to enlist in the armed forces? Is that a greater percentage of gays than straights?

Is our country losing out on some great Scots-Irish-Gay fighting tradition?

disa on October 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM

See, there ya’ go! No one actually KNOWS what’s involved IN removing DADT. And few are explaining what they expect as being involved, except reiterating that idiot phrase, “to serve openly.”

“Openly” how? Just what does that even mean? HOW does that AFFECT the functionality of our military? And so many more, specific, questions.

The military doesn’t exist to “make people feel good about themselves,” it’s not a Twelve Step Program. It’s not a training program for-to-air resentments and get satisfaction for “feeling bullied” or whatever else is the complaint of the week by the Left.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT is the functional competitiveness of the military. Whatever denigrates that, should be considered very, very carefully if at all, and only as some last resort for a gung-ho last stand — which, so far, our military is not beset with, so, again, why even consider this removal of the DADT policy?

Lourdes on October 21, 2010 at 7:26 AM

Constitutionally, this matter is NONE OF THE BUSINESS of the Court. Command of the military is a power clearly delegated to the President by the Constitution, and neither Congress nor courts should interfere.

Judicial interference weakens our military even if the Commander in Chief happens to be a feckless anti-military Liberal. This is because a military which doesn’t know who’s in charge is paralyzed: this is extremely dangerous.

We can elect a real President in 2012 to fix any Obama-inflicted damage. Meanwhile, everyone on both sides of the aisle should be telling the courts to BUTT OUT of all military matters!!!

landlines on October 21, 2010 at 1:20 AM

EXACTLY. The Constitution assigns military control to Congress. The attitudinal female judge embittered in Riverside, CA has UNCONSTITUTIONALLY intruded upon this issue. I mean, she can “rule” on a case brought before her but the Pentagon, the military, doesn’t have to do a fig about it UNLESS Congress orders it so, at least as I see it.

Again, I’m asking whattheheck is WRONG with Mullen and Gates?

Lourdes on October 21, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Judge-ocracy is such a wonderful form of government.

Akzed on October 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM

this is true. Congress has a check upon the court insofar as it can rescind its jurisdiction on matters, however, Congress hasn’t done so in over a century IIRC.

ted c on October 20, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Article 3, Section 2:
“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 included some restrictions on the Courts jurisdiction, short of complete exclusion.

LarryD on October 21, 2010 at 11:19 AM

@Lourdes well having to give soldiers leave to visit their families impedes military performance so we should get rid of that. Wasting time on daily mail drops, and emailing home is a complete distraction from their sole duty, so that’s gone. Letting navy members waste time on shore leave threatens the mission and many service members come back with STD’s so that’s out. hmm Your right we can wipe out so many of these little things and turn our children into perfect fighting machines that can only be destroyed by knowing whether or not the person two beds down is really gay or just staying celibate for the priesthood.

Your logic and reasoning are impeccable. Now all we need is androids that never tire or question orders and we’ll have an amazing army.

Zekecorlain on October 21, 2010 at 5:56 PM