GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/08/supreme-court-rejects-challege-to-dadt/trackback/

  1. I left this comment on Law Dork 2.0:

    The real news about today’s SCOTUS rejection of the case isn’t really about the case or the Court — it is about the Obama administration’s defense of the law.

    According to the AP: The Obama administration issued a “request to maintain the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” directive,” and said in court papers that “the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.’”

    That doesn’t sound like an administration that claims it is working to repeal the ban.

    Comment by Matt Comer — June 8, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - June 8, 2009

  2. Unlike the stimulus, TARPs, bailouts and other spending, it would not cost the current administration anything to overturn don’t ask, don’t tell except political capital. There’s your change for you.

    Apparently the gang bangers and criminals that they now allow in the military foster discipline and cohesion, but gay men and women do not.

    Comment by Marc — June 8, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - June 8, 2009

  3. Sure. Right. Anything to defend Obama. He likes us. He really, really likes us. Perhaps the Gay Left needs to read He’s Just Not That Into You.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — June 8, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - June 8, 2009

  4. What does it matter if SCOTUS rejects a challenge to DADT. The reality is that DADT is probably constitutional. But just because it’s constitutional, does not mean it is good law/policy. Politicians, both now and before the election are missing a prime opportunity to strength our military, by allowing military personnel serve, no matter what their sexual orientation. Everyone of us should have the opportunity to risk our lives to defend our freedoms, no matter what we do in our private lives.
    What irks me is that just because a law is not wise does not make it unconstitutional. If we can all get to that point and govern ourselves that way, life would be so much easier.

    Comment by HCN — June 8, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - June 8, 2009

  5. “But just because it’s constitutional, does not mean it is good law/policy…What irks me is that just because a law is not wise does not make it unconstitutional.”

    Exactly. My guess is that DADT really is constitutional. The pathetic thing about modern political culture though is that if one opposes something, one tends to think the courts should rule that thing is unconstitutional.

    How many Democrats in Congress (and perhaps the President himself) will complain about the Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn DADT and yet won’t do a thing to change DADT themselves? After all, it’s not like the courts are forcing the President and the Democratic-controlled congress to keep DADT around.

    Comment by cme — June 8, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - June 8, 2009

  6. The move to overturn DADT really needs to come from the legislature along with a new law that ends discrimination against gays and lesbians in general.

    Comment by galefan2004 — June 8, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - June 8, 2009

  7. #4 – “The move to overturn DADT really needs to come from the legislature”

    OK, fine – name ONE Congressman/woman who has resolved to introduce legislation to overturn DADT. And what is the projected subcommittee vote on the matter?

    Go ahead – we’re waiting.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 8, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - June 8, 2009

  8. I’m watching former Speaker Newt Gingrich speak at the House Senate Republican dinner in DC. I’m reminded why I loved the guy in the early 90′s. He took on the Dems and won the House in 94 for the first time in 40 years. He is the most brilliant articulate hardball Republican in the forefront. If he wants to run for President, he will be a formidable candidate. He is years away from some of his personal bagage. And if a community organizer can win the office…..a former Congressman and Speaker can win it. Listen to his speech.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 8, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - June 8, 2009

  9. In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

    If I understand correctly, the Obama Administration filed papers supporting DADT. Is this the same Obama who on the campaign trail took a gay-friendly position and opposed DADT?
    Question to you lawyers . . . didn’t the Obama administration have the option in this case to not enter a brief?

    Comment by man — June 8, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - June 8, 2009

  10. We will hear all the bleeting from the Left, etc on this, but they seem to forget that with a stroke of a pen Obama can stop the discharge of gay soldiers under DADT, even while it is being reviewed.

    Latest polls show even conservatives are more than 50% with gays serving in the military. They recognize it is about national security and love of country that drives are wonderful young men and women to sign up regardless of sexual orientation.

    Comment by Libertygal — June 9, 2009 @ 9:43 am - June 9, 2009

  11. After all, it’s not like the courts are forcing the President and the Democratic-controlled congress to keep DADT around.

    That’s correct, cme. But apparently, Obama supports DADT.

    If I understand correctly, the Obama Administration filed papers supporting DADT. Is this the same Obama who on the campaign trail took a gay-friendly position and opposed DADT?

    Apparently, man.

    Question to you lawyers . . . didn’t the Obama administration have the option in this case to not enter a brief?

    I’m not a lawyer, but let’s assume the Obama Administration had to enter a brief. And suppose that Obama really supports repeal of DADT, but feels that the action shouldn’t happen in the courts. Then why submit a brief that rationalizes DADT?

    Two possible answers. Either Obama really supports DADT, or Obama supports its repeal but making a political maneuver to wait for its repeal and even using arguments they don’t believe in to keep it in place for now. Either way, it doesn’t look good.

    I didn’t think I could ever dislike a president as much as I disliked Bush, but Obama is doing wonders so far in that department.

    Comment by Pat — June 11, 2009 @ 7:29 am - June 11, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.683 Powered by Wordpress