Thankfully there is at least one functioning branch of government. What will poor Obama do, now that his snail-like pace has been thrown out the window? Maybe he'll have his Justice Department compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia again.
I know Face. Still it's a start. Also noteworthy that this action was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, of all peoples. It will be interesting to read what the legal talking heads have to say about this. From previous discussions about DADT, the Federal Court system has essentially no say about the UCMJ. In unusual situations, the US Supreme Court will hear UCMJ appeals but traditionally they avoid getting involved. Time will tell. Back in the “day” when some people actually believed that Obama cared about LGBT issues, several “experts” on the UCMJ said that Obama could, as CIC, stop the “finding procedures” and essentially end DADT.
Good. What a soldier has sex with should be no business of the Governments or their fellow soldiers for that matter.
I had assumed Congress would intervene in this matter already. A court fight will take a number of years.
While I don't disagree with the decision, once again you have a single judicial activist legislating from the bench. Decisions on constitutionality on matters like this with a Federal reach ought to be reserved to the SCOTUS. This decision affects things from Okinawa to Bahrain, not just Cali.
Why would a civilian judge be able to have any rulings over military law, the UCMJ, or things that get troops the Bad Chicken Dance (including Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass)? Isn't that the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/ Here's what it says right in their Overview page: http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/Establis.htm
Marso, I can respect your skepticism toward activist judges, but I think it's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would have scooped this off any lower courts plate. This way, at least the ball gets rolling to head toward the Supreme Court. The decision today still has to make its way through the 9th Circuit, and then perhaps we will get the Grey Council to weigh in. What I am enjoying about this decision (aside from that it is good news on principle), is that it puts Obama on the spot. Obama has made a great dog and pony show about how cares about gay people, but it has always been words, just words. One little history about Obama and the gays that some may not be aware of is that Obama allied himself early on with Sam Nunn, the principle Democratic opponent to repealing the ban on gays in the military back in the 90s. Pretend progressives like to blame Bill Clinton for DADT, but they forget that the only compromise Clinton was able to get at the time, was that included in the statute, the military would not ask enlistees about their sexual orientation. Clinton originally wanted to simply lift the ban on gays not being able to serve, but after a very contentious fight, was only able to get that one compromise, not even the much more extensive actual compromise he proposed, though again, he favored a full lift of the ban. Why? Because of dipshits like Sam Nunn. It was people like Sam Nunn who led to Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be come policy. Interesting then, that Obama would ally himself with a douchebag like Sam Nunn....and imo all the more revealing why he has dragged his feet for so long on doing anything about DADT.
not that I don't think a case can be made but....FIRST Amendment? How? Just because the act of speech (or action which courts have found sometimes equivalent to speech) which says "I am gay"? That doesn't seem sound. After all, there's a lot of sound reasons who one is separated from the service which are found out by an act of speech. Kinda gray. Surely there is a more sound foundation?
I'm sure one of our resident lawyers has already given a good answer but my first impression is that that wold apply if it was an enlisted member of the service bringing the case. Being brought by the LCR from outside probably avoids that.
The way they should: when congress passes a piece of legislation like the Social Security Act, Patriot Act, Obamacare, Don't ask, don't tell, it should AUTOMATICALLY go to the SCOTUS for a Constitutional Review. If this was done, the system of checks and balances would work as it ought and none of those piece of shit bills would have ever been made 'law' in the first place.
Good, we need to go back to the old days when they asked. If you said no and you were a homo then that was fraudulent enlistment and a felony.
Obama, to the general public, shows himself as a guy who couldn't care less what gays do. He hasn't made any big speeches on it. The media hasn't hounded him on it. It's almost as if the issue didn't exist. You hear more about what he did to NASA, his outrageous spending, or his big ears, than you do about him and his thoughts on gays.
Bullshit. The main reason for Federal Courts as a co-equal branch of government is to review laws for constitutionality which is exactly what happened here.
TKO, Obama did make a speech about his plans for gay rights during Pride Month earlier this year. It was a publicity stunt, timed to coincide with real civil right celebrations and fairly transparently fed by his desperate need to bask by association ("See guys, I care about gay rights too!!")....but there it is. Of course, he has done very little to help gays. Most of the "advances" he has made -- such as expanding domestic partnership benefits to all Federal employees -- he has copied from Hillary too, who did it first at the State Department, and then Obama followed suit, doing it at a Federal level. I agree with you though that he hardly ever talks about gay rights compared to other (and even some less important) issues....and it is pretty clear he doesn't care a whit about the gays.
Although it would be simple for Obama to start legislation in removing DADT and letting gay people serve freely in the military. This is the 21st century. It shouldn't be a taboo thing for him to do.
Provided they can keep their flaming asses in check in the field, yes. But then again, those who do come under mortar or artillery fire and have to evac with their shorts around their ankles and droopy, drippy doo-doo holes will either be weeded out or sufficiently educated to stay out of "fox holes" in future, so all to the best either way.
