NYT asks how DOJ can still argue 'with a straight face' that Congress will end DADT

[Bluebear]

a good question for apologists of the DADT inaction here too!

====

Like many of us, the NY Times Editorial Board seems skeptical that Congress will end DADT this year (despite repeated promises by the President and Congressional leaders.) Today's editorial castigates the arguments made by the Obama administration in its recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Times wonders why DOJ keeps arguing that Congress will end DADT -- when that possibility seems more remote by the day:

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to allow the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to remain in effect is a victory for theory over reality and a defeat for America’s system of checks and balances.

It also underscores the bravery and competence of Virginia Phillips, the federal judge who mustered logic and persuasive evidence in September when she struck down the statute enacting the policy. She did the same in October when she issued a ban on its enforcement.

The Supreme Court’s order included no explanation, so it’s sensible to look for that in the Justice Department filing that urged the court to rule as it did. Repeatedly, it mentioned repeal of the law by Congress and the process under way in the executive branch laying the groundwork for that. It said the wrong way to overturn the law is by “judicial invalidation” and the right way is by “repeal of an act of Congress by Congress itself.”

Sometimes the courts have to act when Congress lacks the sense or the courage to do so. The Senate could have joined the House in repealing the antigay law in September. It did not. Given the sharp rightward turn of Congress in the elections, how can the Justice Department now make that argument with a straight face?

Good question.

The President and the Senate are both lacking sense and courage on DADT. We keep waiting for signs of a strategy or a plan from someone. Nothing. Time is running out.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/11/nyt-asks-how-doj-can-still-argue-with.html

[stray cat]

1. elections have consequences- this may be the first of many

[de novo]

3. Can just as readily be applied to the 2008 election.

Dems had two years of power and failed to succeed.

[originalpckelly]

4. I know, here's the argument being made:

Elect us, we didn't do what we promised, but elect us anyway, because somehow when we don't do anything, it's better than the other side not doing anything.

[Poll_Blind]

6. The most disturbing thing about that summation is not that you made it, but that...

...it's difficult to refute without convolutions.

That is a huge problem. And it's not your problem, it's this Administration's problem.

Pursuing the "wrong" direction on DADT, torture, extra-judicial killings (and of U.S. citizens, no less!) puts the Progressive wing of the Democratic party in a real quandary.

PB

[walldude]

9. But.. but SARAH PALIN! AUGGHHHHHHH!

It's getting old. And they can't even see the hypocrisy, "well I have my rights but you should be patient, it's for your own good, we don't want to do anything that might get overturned in the future". So sit there and let us tell you how you should feel about your rights.


I had one yesterday kept telling me "YOU JUST DON"T GET IT".. Yeah I don't. I don't get how any liberal could show such little empathy for people who are supposedly on the same side as they are.

[tularetom]

2. You can expect this to punted back and forth at least until after 2012

Neither the administration nor the Democrats in congress have the guts to tackle it.

[terrya]

5. I think we all know now there was never any strategy

Except calling for another useless study, which is already being discredited even before it comes out.

[donco6]

7. True. It was all just a "rope a dope" strategy and we fell for it.

Again.

[Doctor_J]

15. Wrong! The prez was playing chess against checker players!

Keep telling yourself that!

[davidinalameda]

8. but Obama invited lesbians to the easter egg roll

doesn't that make everything okay?

[Doctor_J]

10. Amazing how many foolish DUers thought this would happen

"President shouldn't end it - let Congress do it legally"

How dumb can you be?

[Bluebear]

12. Exactly.

[Doctor_J]

14. It's the 9-dimensional chess theory again

As well as it worked for the mid-term elections, it worked equally as well for DADT repeal.

I'm trying to take a bigger view. Being a straight white male, why should I give a flying Boehner? In fact, I may go whole-hog Limbecile and start complaining about how oppressed my demographic is.

Edit: It's sort of like the advice Bobby Knight gave women rape victims - once it becomes inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it.

[VMI Dem]

11. This stage was set with McClurkin.

The President's personal view of homosexuality affects his policy decisions.

[Bluebear]

13. McClurkin was only the opening act.

:(

[msanthrope]

16. Wait a second. Did the companion bill to HR 5136 get voted on?

I wasn't aware that the Senate even started debate again.

Because as far as I know, the NDAA 2011 still has the repeal amendment in it, and begins debate this week.