Lindsey Graham:DADT isn't going anywhere

[bigdarryl]

I knew this shit was going to happen as soon as Obama said before the elections that he wanted Congress ans the Senate to end DADT I knew right then it wasn't going to happen.The problem is the President is to NAIVE to not have seen it coming http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/lindsey-graham-dont-ask-dont-tell_n_788858.html

[phleshdef]

1. What the fuck is naive about it? Either you ask Congress to act or you don't.

I guess he shouldn't have even bothered asking based on your poorly crafted logic.

[bigdarryl]

3. because they have said NO NO NO to everything he asked for thats why

he should figure out by now they don't like him PERIOD!! and its mainly as Grayson said a couple of months ago because he is BLACK

[phleshdef]

6. Thats all irrelevant. You can't actually repeal the law without them acting.

Period. All the executive orders in the world will not put a true end to the bigoted policy.

So either he does what a President is suppose to do, and use the government you have to try and get something done or you just sit there in the Whitehouse and collect a paycheck.

He isn't being naive. He is doing his fucking job. Thats what you do when you get a job to do, you fucking do it.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. It's been ruled unconstitutional

But Obama has chosen to fight the ruling.

[phleshdef]

18. Yea because letting the courts in on it will guarantee that the policy goes back and forth for ages.

You don't want the military being stuck in limbo on a policy which is exactly the result of anything less than an out and out Supreme Court ruling on the matter. You don't want gay soldiers being given the impression on one day that they are free to be open about their sexuality and then be told the next day that now they have told, they are fired because the policy is back in effect.

No one thinks these things through at all.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. If he hadn't appealed, the policy died right there.

Unless congress drafted a NEW law that the president signed OR there was a 2/3 majority to support it.

Who knows what The Great Capitulator would have done.. he may have signed a new law anyway.

[polmaven]

31. OR until the next case comes before a court

and the rule is again ruled to have been constitutional. Maybe this time it is brought by a straight service man or woman opposed to having LGBT serving openly. That scenario can overturn this one. The only court of law that cannot be overturned is SCOTUS. The only other option is to repeal the law. Those are the two choice to insure permanency.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Nyet.

You can't challenge nothing, which is what they would have to challenge.

If Obama doesn't appeal, the law is de-facto unconstitutional (aka off the books).

Someone can't sue to say their SHOULD be a law, where there is none. (ie, you can't SUE the government to make the speed limit 45, because you believe 65 is dangerous).

The only way it would heva been overturned is a NEW LAW.

[msanthrope]

56. Wrong--Cook v. Gates doesn't disappear unless you appeal.

Now you have a circuit split. You must appeal.

[polmaven]

61. Thank you!

The statute did not disappear because a court said it is unconstitutional. A plaintiff with standing can bring suit to have the law, which is still there, re-instituted.

[Milo_Bloom]

67. There is only one plaintiff with Standing.

The justice department. If Obama doesn't appeal. The law is gone.

And NO ONE has standing to challenge.

[msanthrope]

69. But Cook v. Gates is not gone.

Because you see, whatever is done in a district court in the 9th doesn't change an appellate court in the 1st.

In other words, you might try reading Cook v. Gates, which found DADT constitutional only last year, before you think that DADT is gone simply by not appealing...

Now you have a circuit split.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Circuit splits ONLY matter when the court rulings are appealed.

If not.. last one to speak on the issue wins. (so to speak)

[polmaven]

86. I'm not talking about challenging THIS

decision. I am talking about a new suit, in any part of the country. That is able to be done as long as the statute is still in place.

[Milo_Bloom]

90. By Who? Under what theory?

[polmaven]

95. By any other service member...

on many different objections. After all, other District courts have found in the past that DADT was, indeed, Constitutional. In order to get this particular ruling cast in stone, it must be decided by the SCOTUS. That, or the statute must be replaced with a new statute stating there can be no discrimination.

[Milo_Bloom]

96. Nyet.

Any other service member can't just bring a case of "many different objections".

It would have to be a VERY SPECIFIC OBJECTION and a VERY SPECIFIC CASE (a dream case for anyone trying to fight DADT).

A service person would have to sue to compel the government to enforce the rule. The fact that a court found it "constitutional" doesn't mean the government has to enforce it, it just means they CAN.

The more recent court decision states it CANNOT be enforced and the government has to pay heed to the most recent court decision (or appeal).

So, this service member would have to do the following. Sue the government to force compliance with the law claiming that non-compliance with the law is ACTUALLY CAUSING THEM DAMAGE. They would then have the BURDEN of PROVING the damage.

So not only would someone would have to be the face of the anti-gay movement.. that person would also have the burden of actually PROVING damage.

This is something the gay and lesbian community hasn't had the advantage of before.. being on the opposite end of the burden of proof.

[polmaven]

98. I said

on, not of many different objections, meaning s/he may choose from among them. I am not as naive or stupid as you apparently think I am. If you don't think that the right judge, in the right District would be capable of once again finding the statute Constitutional, you're dreaming. It has been done before and can be done again.

Only SCOTUS or Congress can make it go away for good.

[Milo_Bloom]

103. NYET, again.

There are NOT many different theories they can choose among. There is 1, as I explained.

AND

It is a DREAM CASE for anyone wanting DADT to go away.

[polmaven]

104. Well, lets you and I

just agree to disagree here. We are obviously looking at this through different lenses.

[Milo_Bloom]

106. There is only one lens you can look at this through

so we can't just "agree to disagree". We are dealing with facts that are either RIGHT or WRONG.

You can't just bring a lawsuit because you want to. There are very specific elements you have to have in order to bring a suit.

You have to have standing.

and you have to have DAMAGES.

Your post suggest that some person is going to bring some suit based on some theory that will bring DADT back to life.

WHO WILL BRING THE CASE? WHAT THEORY? WHAT DAMAGES WILL THEY ALLEGE? HOW WILL THEY PROVE THOSE DAMAGES?

A district court judge, no matter how GOP or Wacky isn't going to just rule without a proper case in front of them, which means it has to have all the legal elements, because he the most wacko, activist GOP judge will knock it down on appeal.

So... look at this through the LEGAL LENS.. and explain how this case progresses, what theory is used and what evidence is used to back the theory.

[polmaven]

107. Well, OK then....

see ya!

[Milo_Bloom]

108. This is a good example of what is wrong with the world of politics today.

And the news organizations and most dialog about these topics.

We have to be left with this idea that there are 2 sides to every story. Everyone just has an "opinion" and we should agree to disagree.

We try to ignore the reality that there are actual facts, actual rules and actual truths.

This is why we have this idiotic global warming "debate" in this country. Because people have to "agree to disagree", when one person supplies actual facts and the other person has anecdotal evidence based on a misinformed opinion and then when challenged throws their hands in the air states "we need to agree to disagree" and then storms off in a huff when someone asks them to back up their poorly formed opinion with actual facts and analysis.

[ruggerson]

63. the Obama admin is the only one with standing to appeal

additionally, they can render the law moot by not enforcing it - something they claimed for months they couldn't do and then suddenly started doing a few weeks ago (by reforming how it is reported and restricting who can enforce it).

If Congress doesn't do its job, iow, there are other ways to effectively kill it.

[msanthrope]

70. Yes, but Cook v. Gates doesn't go away.

Try reading Cook v. Gates, and then tell me how a decision in the 9th invalidated a decision in the 1st.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. Which came later?

The later ruling "technically wins" when you get into it.. so the government just relying on the most recent ruling is sufficient.

But, you also have to understand that court rulings are NOT laws. They are instructions.

Cook v Gates didn't say that the government HAD TO enforce DADT. It said it was OKAY FOR THEM TO.

The 9th circuit said "absolutely not". Thus, the government CANNOT enforce the law, unless the conflict is resolved. Thus, the law is MOOT until action is taken.

The ONLY PARTIES who can take action on those cases are the parties to the case. (The gay servicemen aren't going to push cook v gates forward with a favorable ruling in the 9th circuit) and IF the government chose not to push the ruling forward.. that would be it.

You would need a WHOLE NEW CASE to pop up.. someone trying to compel the government to enforce DADT, but as I explained in another post.. that is the DREAM scenario for gays.

[ruggerson]

85. You are absolutely correct

[Milo_Bloom]

66. Nyet, again.

See above

[msanthrope]

68. Cook v Gates. You are talking about a different case.

as I explain to you above, nothing done in the 9th erases Cook v. Gates in the 1st.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. Nyet, again.

SOMEONE involved in the case (P or D) HAS TO appeal. The case can't be spontaneously appealed.

Unless the plaintiffs in Cook v Gates decide to go against their own interest and push the case forward... it dies.

The GOVERNMENT is other entity, so it would be up to the GOVERNMENT whether to push it or not. (ie, Department of Justice, ie OBAMA).

Now, let's say Obama chose NOT TO go forward and let it die. The military would spend 2 years with gays serving openly and not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Any case would have to start from scratch and would have to be against the government, ordering it to enforce the rule. This would be a nearly impossible hill to climb, since the government has a ruling declaring the law unconstitutional. Further, the party would have to show ACTUAL damage to bring the case... also really difficult and dicey and EXACTLY the type of case the gay community would want. Force someone to PROVE ACTUAL HARM from serving with openly gay people. It is much easier than arguing the opposite, which is gays trying to show that there won't be any harm. In short, the odds of any case like that happening is next to none.

Now, let's say right wing wacko X gets in in 2012 and has a bug up his/her ass to stop this horror. Off the top of my head, I don't know the statute of limitations on a federal appeal, but even if the statute hasn't lapsed, thus ending it completely... the P would have an excellent latches defense. (the "government" did nothing when it knew the rule was being violated, thus, assented to the courts opinion and has invalidated the rule through inaction).

EVEN IF you get passed ALL THAT, you now have something even more valuable... two years of actual data showing the actual harm, or lack of it, from gays serving openly. You couldn't talk in hypothetical anymore, as they do now. Once you have actual data, even minimum scrutiny would be difficult to pass.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. I think that you're correct

I'm an amateur, but that's my understanding as well.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. I didn't go through 3 years of law school for nothing :)

[onenote]

105. technically speaking, that isn't exactly right

The decision from the District Court in the 9th Circuit, if unappealed, would be the "law of the circuit" in the 9th CIrcuit. It would not change the "law of the circuit" in the First Circuit. As a practical matter, that means that if the government sought to continue to enforce DADT, the target of the enforcement action could come to the 9th Circuit and get an injunction because, under the law of that circuit, the law is unconstitutional. On the other hand, if someone went to the First Circuit, they couldn't get an injunction (unless the First Circuit reconsidered its earlier ruling). And if they went to a court in any other circuit, the result would be whatever that court decided, unbound by the result in either the 9th Circuit or the First Circuit.

As a practical matter, of course, no one trying to avoid having DADT enforced against them would go anywhere other than the 9th Circuit since that is the court where the law of the circuit is in their favor. Because it is only a District Court ruling, however, there still is a significant risk that, if a different District Court judge heard the case, they might decide not to follow the "law of the circuit" because it was handed down by another district court judge not by the court of appeals. So there is a benefit to having the court of appeals in the 9th Circuit rule since it more tightly ties the hands of all of the District Court judges in the ciruit than a decision by a single district court judge.

[karynnj]

39. Only at the lower court level - if it continues to be appealed upward,

and the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional that would be different than what has happened until this point.

[ruggerson]

64. No one has standing to appeal except for the administration

n/t

[Honeycombe8]

78. Correction: The DOJ. Not the administration. nt

[ruggerson]

83. The DOJ is the administration.

The AG reportos directly to the President. And if you don't think decisions about highly politicized matters such as this are made in the WH, then you have a mistaken view of how our system of government actually works.

[Honeycombe8]

99. You are wrong, Grasshopper. Yes, the AG is apptd by the Prez, but he doesn't "report" to

the President about the cases he is charged to represent the country in.

Those are two different branches of government. Remember when the Bush admin. got in trouble for firing DOJ attorneys for not pursuing litigation against Democrats? That was because the DOJ has its job to do, in its own branch of government, distinct and intentionally separate from the Executive Branch.

The W.H. is not allowed, by law, to direct the DOJ in the handling of the DOJ's cases.

It may be confusing, since witnesses for the DOJ cases will sometimes come from different agencies, departments, and other branches of the federal government.

[ruggerson]

101. Then answer this:

When the Smelt brief caused a huge furor and was on the front pages of all the newspapers, there were meetings held between LGBT legal eagles, DOJ attorneys and white house political operatives. The result was that the brief was revised and Obama, in coordination with the DOJ, issued a WH statement reaffirming his opposition to DOMA.

This was all well reported and it was quite clear that the revised brief was a political decision. The fact that the WH issued a statement in coordination with the toned down, revised brief left no doubt as to how it occurred.

That's how the system actually works. The DOJ is ostensibly "independent" from the WH, but in reality, with very politicized issues like this one, the WH has input and the last call.

I realize it's probably confusing for you, but that's how the modern DOJ has worked for decades.

[karynnj]

87. Which is why they have to if you want this to move to the Supreme Court

- others who are lawyers, or who have asked lawyers, have answered this far better than I could in this thread.

[ruggerson]

89. We don't want this to go to the USSC

A federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional. The Obama administration should accept the ruling, not appeal, and start implementing the dismantling DADT. This is the route, btw, that the NY Times and several other major newspapers editorial boards suggested. In this case, I am more inclined to agree with them than with than with amateur armchair legal jockeys on DU.

[Honeycombe8]

77. Obama didn't "fight" anything. That was the DOJ. A different branch of the govt.

Remember how unethical (and illegal) it was for Bush's administration to get involved in the DOJ staffers around the country? How they fired several who didn't pursue actions against Democrats, like Cheney wanted? How they made sure that Republican staffers were hired over Democrats? All that was illegal.

Those are two separate branches of government. It is as wrong for the White House to get involved in judicial actions as it would be for the DOJ to get involved in White House decisions.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. The DOJ works for the President

It is part of the Executive branch last time I checked.

For example, prior to Obama, new Presidents got rid of all of the Federal Prosecutors and put their own people in. For example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy:

A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."

Obama, however, feels comfortable with a Republican crew.

[karynnj]

88. Yes, but the AG is traditionally suppose to be independent of the President

who appointed him (her). Remember the Saturday Night Massacre when Elliot Richardson resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox. The last thing that anyone wants is an accusation that the AG is acting politically in support of the President - the Bush administration did, but they were wrong.

Not to mention, Obama (and Holder) HAVE nominated about 80 attorneys to replace the Bush ones. Here is a list which gives when the were nominated, had hearings, and were confirmed by the Senate - http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/111thCongressExecutiveNominations/111USAttorneys.cfm

[Honeycombe8]

100. You are confusing APPOINTMENTS with the Judicial Branch of government.

Appointing a judge is very different from telling the judge what cases he will accept and how to handle them. That is against the law. That's because that is the Judicial Branch. The W.H. is the Executive Branch. Congress - the Legislative Branch.

The Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices, too. But Presidents have no say about Supreme Court cases. That is the Judicial Branch's business...against the law for other branches to interfere.

[de novo]

57. Since you use the Congress won't act excuse, Obama should repeal by

Executive Order. It will at least be good law until a repuke prez comes along and tries to reverse that. By that time, there would be a new uproar over it. Either way, Obama would have done the right thing by stopping the discharge of LGBT soldiers.

[polichick]

2. He's not naive - just refuses to use his presidential powers...

...either because he's afraid of the political fallout or because he's placating the real powers-that-be.

edit: typo

[jaxx]

5. The power to repeal a law?

[polichick]

7. Doesn't have to be done that way - he's Commander in Chief. nt

[jaxx]

10. If the law isn't repealed the next president can simply reinstate DADT.

Is that the goal? Or is wiping it out for good the goal?

[polichick]

12. As I said, he refuses to use his presidential powers...

If acting as CofC to repeal DADT is the only way, it should be done - let the next prez reinstate if he/she sees fit.

This prez seems afraid of political fallout and/or the real powers-that-be.

[jaxx]

17. So you are saying it isn't important to have it gone permanently

and are ok with someone else reinstating it? In the zeal to get to post yet another the prez is afraid you have thrown the lgbt under the bus. As the sister of a gay transsexual, I am appalled.

[MiniMe]

20. He can't repeal a law as CIC

The only thing he could do is an executive order, which could be overridden when the next CIC gets elected. Just because W thought he could do it doesn't mean that he actually could. And what you want is not to repeal DADT, because before DADT came in, the military asked all the time, and got rid of anybody who was gay.

[JamesA1102]

32. Powers of CofC do not include ordering the military to disobey a law

that was enacted by congress. That would give the President the powers of a military dictator which he doesn't have.

[ruggerson]

65. They've already done it

No one has been discharged in over a month:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205936.html

[msanthrope]

72. No--that's not what happened...

DADT is made up of two parts...

Don't Ask, where Gates has latitude to define how a DADT investigation begins and is carried out. Gates made it more difficult to start an investigation in March, and now makes the secretaries of the services personally responsible for discharges. This gums up the works, but does not repeal, and is subject to the whims of the next Adiminstration.

Don't Tell, where the DoD is mandated to discharge anyone who is openly gay. That's still in effect.

It's repeal or bust.

[ruggerson]

84. It's not congressional repeal or bust

Obama himself has said there is a plan "B"

While congressional repeal is the preferred outcome, there are many things the Executive/CIC can do to stop this. They spent months saying they couldn't do anything and then changed the policies to defang DADT, once the Riverside decision was handed down. There are other steps they will take if need be.

If there is no outright repeal, the second best thing is to render the law as moot as possible for the duration of Obama's tenure.

[dsc]

15. actually since this law isn't a repeal coupled with a right for gays to serve

it can be undone anyway. All this law does is give the President the right to repeal when certain conditions are met and says nothing whatsoever about what is to replace it. President Palin, or Romney or whomever could just as much return us to DADT if they were to choose to with this law passed as without it.

[jaxx]

23. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 109th and 110th Congress by Marty Meehan and the 111th Congress by Ellen Tauscher. The purpose of the bill is to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning disclosing one's homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Patrick Murphy took over the sponsorship of the legislation after Tauscher's resignation in June 2009.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Readiness_Enhancement_Act

S.3065 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN03065:@@@D&summ2=m&

H.R.1283 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@D&summ2=m&

[dsc]

25. that isn't what the Senate voted on though

they voted on a Senate bill which was quite different.

[jaxx]

29. I gave you the house and senate bills.

[dsc]

33. and you will note, from your very own link, that the Senate bill you linked

WASN'T VOTED ON BY THE SENATE. It states, at your link, that the bill was referred to committee. The defense appropriations bill is what was voted on and that doesn't contain a repeal, it contains permission to repeal and nothing else.

Here is the actual bill that was being voted on and what it actually says about DADT.

Subtitle J: Other Matters - (Sec. 591) Provides for repeal of the current DOD policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, to be effective 60 days after the Secretary has received DOD's comprehensive review on the implementation of such repeal, and the President, Secretary, and JCS Chairman certify to Congress that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action, that DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement the discretion provided by such repeal, and that implementation of such policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention. Provides that, until such time as the above conditions are met, the current policy shall remain in effect uniformly across the military departments.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:60:./temp/~bdZqKS:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/|

This is the bill that was voted on, not the Lieberman bill which didn't leave committee.

[jaxx]

35. That's why it didn't pass cloture, because DADT was in the bill.

SUBTITLE J--OTHER MATTERS

Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces (sec. 591)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 654 of title 10, United States Code, to be effective 60 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense has received the report of the Department of Defense's comprehensive review of the implementation of a repeal of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 (comprehensive review), and the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that they have considered the report and proposed plan of action of the comprehensive review, that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement the discretion provided by the repeal of section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and that the implementation of policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for the armed forces.

The committee intends to hold hearings upon receipt of the findings of the comprehensive review to ensure that the findings of the review and the recommended policy revisions are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for the armed forces.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111QJ6Dt&refer=&r_n=sr201.111&item=&&&sel=TOC_550840&

[dsc]

40. Note what wasn't in that text

there is no direction to let gays serve, unlike in Lieberman's bill. The whole infrastructure that will permit gays to serve will come from Obama and no one else. That will be able to be removed by his successor. Lieberman's bill would have codified a right to serve for gays, this bill doesn't.

[jaxx]

41. I think the Lieberman bill would be inserted into the bill and that is

why they couldn't get enough votes for cloture. I want it to be ended forever. It's a hideous law.

[dsc]

43. that isn't what they did

This was part of the great deal that got accepted back in June and fat lot of good it did us. The simple fact is that this repeal isn't coupled with any legal right to serve making it no different than an executive order.

[jaxx]

44. I disagree.

[dsc]

49. you can disagree until the cows come home and give birth to aliens

but the law says what it says and more importantly doesn't say what it doesn't say. The law clearly doesn't provide gays with a right to serve as Lieberman's does. The fact is all this bill does is repeal DADT and let the President replace it with whatever he desires.

[jaxx]

52. I disagree.

11-18-10
The Advocate: Lieberman on DADT: We Have 60

Sen. Joe Lieberman said he is "confident" there are more than enough votes to pass the defense bill with "don't ask, don't tell" repeal if Sen. Harry Reid offers an amendment process that's fair to Republicans.

By Kerry Eleveld

Sen. Joe Lieberman said Thursday that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” as part of the National Defense Authorization Act is no longer a question of votes, it’s a question of process.

“I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the Defense authorization with the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process, in other words, whether we’ll take enough time to do it,” Lieberman told reporters at a press conference, naming GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Richard Lugar as "Yes" votes. “Time is an inexcusable reason not to get this done.”

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/the-advocate-lieberman-on-dadt-we-have-60/

[dsc]

53. It is a repeal of DADT

but it doesn't include a right for gays to serve.

[jaxx]

54. Yes, the Lieberman bill does and it 's added to the defense bill.

[dsc]

55. No it isn't

I have provided the link to the bill that was voted on, your own link mentions that the Lieberman bill wasn't voted on at all. If you can't get that much straight I fail to see what we have to discuss. The facts are, what the facts are.

[de novo]

58. If it isn't wiped out for good, he failed. If he used his powers as CiC,

it would at least be good law for the duration of his presidency, and likely beyond. Once the bigoted policy ends, it will be nearly impossible to sway public opinion against GLBT serving in the military.

[msanthrope]

71. Tell me how the CIC overrides Article 1, Section 8? n/t

[napi21]

13. That's not true. I checked my assumption with an attorey friend of mine.

IF Obama were to issue an executive order to ban DADT any future Presidennt would be able to reinstitute it again via executive order. THAT'S why Obama ants Congress to actually repeal the law! The only other ooption is a ruleeing by the SCOTUS.

[polichick]

14. So what - let the next prez reinstate if he/she sees fit. It's clear Congress...

...is going to drop the ball.

[phleshdef]

19. Yea, lets let gay troops have a false sense of security now so that they can get fired later.

[dsc]

27. that is no different than the law they are attempting to pass does

The law isn't a repeal, it gives the President the right to repeal and is silent on what should replace. Thus the part allowing gays to serve will be done by executive order and thus can be removed by the same.

[de novo]

59. Yea, let's give them nothing at all, not stand up with them and pass the

fucking buck. Why not just do the right goddamn thing right this goddamn minute? Because they are a bunch of cowards... or worse.

[VMI Dem]

4. I knew this shit was going to happen as soon as Obama was elected.

[joeybee12]

9. I think a certain jackass from South Carolina needs to be outed...nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. If you have some proof, why don't you go to the press?

[Lil Missy]

11. Obama wants it repealed, Lindsey Graham wants to block it. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Joe Bacon]

16. Throw that closet queen out of the Armed Forces.

Lindsay Graham should be thrown out of the Armed Forces for his personal behavior that violates Don't Ask Don't Tell. PERIOD!

[hedgehog]

22. I'm wondering if a lot of the opposition to ending DADT comes

from closeted gays. Something along the lines of "since you can't be in the military if you're gay, and I was in the military, that proves I'm not gay."

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. What behavior is that which violates DADT?

[jenmito]

21. It doesn't matter what he says. He's only 1 person. They're having 2 hearings on the repeal

this coming week and we only need 2 or 3 Repubs.

[Radical Activist]

24. And you actually believe Graham?

Obama already said he'll act by executive order if Congress doesn't. So it will happen one way or another.

Truman did the same thing. He tried to get military desegregation through Congress first. He did it by executive order when they failed to act. The main difference is that Obama is doing it faster than Truman did and with less public dissension from military leaders.

[dsc]

26. I would like a quote for that

because that is just plain, false. Obama has never, not even one single, soltiary time, said he would act if Congress didn't. Put up or retract.

[Radical Activist]

34. "This policy will end and it will end on my watch."

What meaning do you take from that?
It has been said in different ways by several members of the administration. They repeatedly state that a legislative repeal is the best way to end DADT, but they don't say it's the only way. Biden makes it obvious in this interview...

http://fabulouspdx.com/rachel-maddow-interviews-joe-biden-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

They're not going to say it explicitly because that could lose votes for repeal in Congress. They say they prefer a permanent full repeal by Congress, but that either way its definitely going to end one way or another. Gibbs has referred to pursuing other options if Congress doesn't pass repeal. The meaning which can be concluded from that is obvious if you aren't ready to assume the worst.

[dsc]

42. they and their defenders have repeatedly stated, on the record,

that not only won't they remove DADT by executive order but that they can't remove it by executive order. Biden also said there was a deal, which we now know either was never true or wasn't followed through on with literally no consequences at all to those who didn't follow through. You can't continually state that the something can't be done by executive order and then expect people to believe that you will use an executive order to do it. The fact is you have no quote because he has no intention whatsoever in using an executive order to affect this change.

[Radical Activist]

45. It can't be fully repealed by executive order.

But they can stop enforcing it while we're at war, as you know. No one in the Obama administration has said they can't do that. Wouldn't you agree that a temporary solution like that, which can be reversed by the next President, is less preferable than a full legal repeal by Congress?

[dsc]

46. except this isn't a full repeal

It does repeal the DADT language but it does nothing, not a thing, to give gays a right to serve. Even if this law passes, and I frankly doubt it will, the entire legal infrastructure permitting gays to serve will come from the executive and will be able to be repealed by the next executive. We would be literally no better off at all.

[Radical Activist]

48. Then what's your solution?

I disagree that Obama repealing DADT after he's allowed to by Congress "would be literally no better off at all."

[dsc]

50. This should have been pushed from day 1

with Lieberman's language. If he really thought that acting in an executive capacity would undermine support for legislative repeal (something he didn't believe when it came to immigration law though), then he should have used the bully pulpit and his lobbying team to get the congressional repeal done when he had the 60 votes.

[Radical Activist]

51. He has pushed it from day one and he did use the bully pulpit.

You didn't hear his comments in the state of the union speech? Or his other speeches? I'm sure you can find the stories about Obama personally lobbying. I never see stories about him personally lobbying on other issues, but he had to release something about lobbying DADT in response to accusations. Did you see Biden mention in the video that he helped get it out of committee?

Obama is obviously on board saying it will be repealed one way or another. I don't see how putting all the focus on him in nasty and sometimes misleading ways helps when we need to be holding the Senate's feet to the fire. It reeks of ulterior motives.

[de novo]

60. Then let's see the temporary repeal, Where is he on it?

[Radical Activist]

62. Watch the video I already linked in this thread.

Biden discusses why.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=535143&mesg_id=535298

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. So says Lindsey

We don't need his (or McCain's) vote anyway.

What the hell do his comments have to do with President Obama?

[karynnj]

36. They need Congress to end what they started back in 1993

They DID put it in the defense bill - where it still is. They did NOT wait for the elections. They took it to the floor of the Senate, but the Republicans en mass voted against cloture. You may not like this - but that is what happened.

The chance for it now - versus then - is that several Republicans spoke of waiting for the report. If we can get Collins, who said she was for it and either Brown (MA) or Snowe, we can get cloture (twice) in the lame duck and pass it. It would make more sense to attack those fighting it - the Republicans.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I see his sticking by his boyfriend, Grampy McSame's, side. Such a pity! n/t

[jenmito]

47. His buddy Joe Lieberman says we have the votes to repeal DADT:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4516

[jenmito]

73. He said he THINKS DADT isn't going anywhere:

"I don't believe there is anywhere near the votes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. On the Republican side, I think we will be united in the lame duck and the study I would be looking for is asking military members: Should it be repealed, not how to implement it once you as a politician decide to repeal it. So I think in a lame duck setting Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not going anywhere."-from your link.

[backscatter712]

76. Lindsey Graham: Am I the only one who sees Haggard's Law in action?

From the Daily Show:

Haggard's Law – The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality.

[budkin]

91. He's absolutely right

[Phx_Dem]

92. It's either Congress or the Supreme Court. Those are the only two options.

An Presidential executive order cannot repeal an Act of Congress.

If you'd rather "hang your hat" on the Supreme Court, good luck with that. But that's the only other option.

[cliffordu]

97. Ah, yes, another reality-free criticism of the Prez.

Nice try. Fail.

[Skittles]

102. your job must be getting harder and harder

[cliffordu]

109. Ain't no job, skittles.

reality is reality.

And you fucking know me better than that.

Mebbe too much Oso in your diet.