I sent an email to Nor about DADT. Iasked him is Obama

[napi21]

repealed it via Executive order could another President reenact it via another Esecutive order and he said YEA! He also said that if this congress repeals it, another congress could reneact it. The only way to get rid of it for good is via the courts. Preferably the SCOTUS.

Now we know why Obama has been holding back and saying this has to be done the right way.

If any of you don't know, Norm is an attorney who has his own talk show...Norman Goldman.

[gateley]

1. I think that's what he was trying to explain about the process, but nobody listened.

[napi21]

2. I'm sure it was, but I guess he could have gone a bit farther

and given the public a legal lesson. For sure most of us need them!

[gateley]

3. That's been one of my complaints/criticisms about him -- he doesn't explain

things very well. Like when he put the moratorium in place on deep water drilling, most people thought it meant ALL deep water drilling when in fact it was only holding up those projects that were still on the board. It did NOT affect the rigs that were out there working already, and only impacted a very few projects. Yet people were screaming about the loss of "all those jobs". I never would have known that had I not read/heard an explanation elsewhere.

[sabbat hunter]

4. chances are though

once a congress gets rid of DODT it will be gone for good.

[laughingliberal]

5. Still does not explain why DOJ ran screaming for an 'emergency' stay against Phillips' injunction

No reason in the world for that. Just played right into that whole BS meme of irreparable harm to the military.

Fierce!

[napi21]

6. I disagree. I think the reason is the same one I stated in the OP.

Obama wants the COURT to declare it's unconstitutional, and is forcing it to the SCOTUS. Once that happens it can't be reinstated.

[laughingliberal]

7. You're entitled to your opinion. But appealing the case did not require requesting a stay on the...

injunction. If, indeed, his intent is to see it repealed, leaving the injunction against discharges in place would have furthered the cause. After several weeks of no discharges, it would be much easier to make the case that no harm to the military had resulted. Instead they go tearing in for an 'emergency' stay arguing 'irreparable harm' to the military if the injunction were to stand. Makes no sense whatsoever.