Was the appeal of the DADT ruling by President Obama a last minute effort to get votes?

[VMI Dem]

Now that it seems to have no chance of being repealed, what other reason could there have been?

[EFerrari]

1. There are things this administration does that make no sense to me at all.

Like doing that just before an election.

Like making a big deal out of the CA pot initiative just before an election.

I just don't get it on any level.

[gateley]

2. Self Delete - I misunderstood the question. nt

[MineralMan]

3. I can't see how anyone would think that would help the President

get votes for Democrats. So, no, I don't think that was the reason. I think he truly believes that the way to end DADT is through repeal. I still believe that will succeed in the lame duck session. I hope so, anyhow. It may well have been a mistake. Only time is going to provide an answer, but I can't see why he would think his actions would help gain votes for Democrats.

[The Wielding Truth]

7. Do you think that he is a more methodical and noble than a politician?

Is it probable that he is so responsible and thinks so long range that he discounts the politics of his cautious actions?
Or am I giving too much credit? He has been so pragmatic as to commit to a non action, to insure not to make a bad action.

He has been so sure to play by the rules,when the rules have been so corrupted by the republicans who have bent them into unrecognizable whims, that his respect for the process and these people has given them room to plot to destroy what integrity is left in our government.

Is this a reasonable assumption?

[MineralMan]

13. I really can't answer that. Obama could, if you could get him to

address the question. As I said, time will tell.

[Starry Messenger]

4. That one baffles me.

Even in the most conservative scenario, letting the court ruling decide the issue seemed like a no-brainer.

[VMI Dem]

5. Let the ruling stand and pursue repeal. In the meantime, DADT is gone.

Strange that one. Or maybe not so strange.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I know, I know.

But they've been thumping away at that "three branches of government" meme, so I thought they'd apply that to themselves as well. Silly me.

[BzaDem]

8. The reason Obama appealed has been explained many times. You can continue to bury your head

in the sand, but that doesn't change the legal situation.

[AtomicKitten]

10. +1

[riderinthestorm]

11. He did not have to appeal the stay. That was the bridge too far

and while I can't speak for the OP, I believe that was the real gist of their question. He could have let the injunction remain in place - effectively ending DADT for now, while the repeal worked its way through.

[walldude]

15. Yeah it's been explained many times and that explaination

has been fully debunked.

She explains it better than I:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/3558/law_prof%3A_obama_under_no_obligation_to_appeal_dadt/

But if you can get through the legal mumbo jumbo you can see the actual law here:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/II/31/530D

Obama was under no rule that required him to challenge DADT matter of fact it specifically says when dealing with Constitutional rulings he can use his judgment.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Gays aren't whining for nothing friend.

[joeybee12]

9. I really think the problem is he went into a meeting with Gates and the generals and

gave away the farm like on HRC and said, please, please, please I'll give you anything you want if we can repeal DADT...and their demands were to stretch it out forever, and defend it in court.

[jkshaw]

12. Hush Joey, you don't know what you're talking about

[QC]

14. That would be a very McClurkinesque strategy, wouldn't it? n/t