GAY Don't Ask, Don't Tell Suspended by Federal Judge

Jonny_B

Erect Member
Oct 14, 2004
9,162
25
41
Marklar
76.13₥
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/12/us/AP-US-Gays-in-Military.html?_r=1

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.
 

Jonny_B

Erect Member
Oct 14, 2004
9,162
25
41
Marklar
76.13₥
Does that mean that it goes back to the old policy while this is debated?
i'm guessing here, but wouldn't the old policy have been a ban on gays in the military that would have been found unconstitutional or something like that? i thought dadt was instituted when that was thrown out.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
this is bad

we're not supposed to be subject to the whims of federal judges. our mandates are from congress alone. this sets a bad precedent for other, potentially necessary policies to be altered because some judge disagrees with it. the policy needs to be repealed but it needs to be repealed properly
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
67,503
19,764
1,073
Marklar
46,624.23₥
Steam
mattressfish
this is bad

we're not supposed to be subject to the whims of federal judges. our mandates are from congress alone. this sets a bad precedent for other, potentially necessary policies to be altered because some judge disagrees with it. the policy needs to be repealed but it needs to be repealed properly
I don't like the idea of a military (or any government agency) that's only immune to only one of the branches.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
I don't like the idea of a military (or any government agency) that's only immune to only one of the branches.
Then change the law but our legal system is designed to be an entirely separate entity from the civilian courts. While I agree with the fundamental goal behind this ruling it's horrendously counter-productive because this can very easily be challenged and will be struck down very soon. Allowing it to stand would allow federal judges to alter defense policy on a whim. Fuck. That. Shit.

We are immune to the decisions of the federal courts with the exception of SCOTUS. Our legal system is designed such that challenges to the UCMJ have a direct path from our judge advocates to the SCOTUS, bypassing federal district courts entirely and running through our own appeals court.
 
Last edited:

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
I am very happy that this is not only getting movement (albeit very slow) movement from the executive branch, the judicial branch, and legislatures are putting bills in to remove it. I just wish they would synchronize to get it removed quicker. This ruling is quite interesting in that the reasons the judge gave for classifying the policy unconstitutional. It is quite similar to the ruling they made for racial integration in the military.

I am very happy for this ruling and it just adds more fuel to the equal rights fight.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
I am very happy that this is not only getting movement (albeit very slow) movement from the executive branch, the judicial branch, and legislatures are putting bills in to remove it. I just wish they would synchronize to get it removed quicker. This ruling is quite interesting in that the reasons the judge gave for classifying the policy unconstitutional. It is quite similar to the ruling they made for racial integration in the military.

I am very happy for this ruling and it just adds more fuel to the equal rights fight.
The problem is that this is adding more fuel to the wrong side of the fire. This will be easily overturned - if not outright ignored - because federal courts have zero jurisdiction in the military. At best this will just cause even more people on the other side of the fence to rally against the cause because now they're including "activist judges" and at worst it will set two bad legal precedents that are going to be bad for both the repeal and the general operation of the military.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
The problem is that this is adding more fuel to the wrong side of the fire. This will be easily overturned - if not outright ignored - because federal courts have zero jurisdiction in the military. At best this will just cause even more people on the other side of the fence to rally against the cause because now they're including "activist judges" and at worst it will set two bad legal precedents that are going to be bad for both the repeal and the general operation of the military.
that term activist judges is fucking retarded. They are doing the jobs they were appointed to, interpreting the law. They are not activists.

But I agree, it should come from the Commander in Chief, just like racial integration was ordered. Why Obama chose to go slowly and make sure to get Congressional buy-in makes no sense to me. Even while waiting for Congress to get their act together he could at least issue a moratorium. Well not even all of Congress, the House already voted to abolish DADT.

The court's ruling was interpreting this policy as violating not one but two Constitutional amendments and is suggested to be abolished. Isn't it the Prez that finally vetoes or follows the ruling?
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
You have the House, now federal judges, the Prez, the head of the military, and thousands of troops and public popular vote that would strike down DADT and yet it is still being exercised. I really don't understand that at all.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
that term activist judges is fucking retarded. They are doing the jobs they were appointed to, interpreting the law. They are not activists.
I know, that's why I put it in quotes. However, this judge was not doing her job. She has no authority over military matters. Our legal system is through a separate channel; we have our own appellate courts that go up to SCOTUS. We are not subject to federal districts.
But I agree, it should come from the Commander in Chief, just like racial integration was ordered. Why Obama chose to go slowly and make sure to get Congressional buy-in makes no sense to me. Even while waiting for Congress to get their act together he could at least issue a moratorium. Well not even all of Congress, the House already voted to abolish DADT.
Actually it needs to come from Congress. He could issue a moratorium - and he should have, political expediency be damned - but the repeal needs to happen through the proper procedure because finding ways to skirt the law only opens the door for future abuse and future problems.
The court's ruling was interpreting this policy as violating not one but two Constitutional amendments and is suggested to be abolished. Isn't it the Prez that finally vetoes or follows the ruling?
The president can't simply decide to veto a court ruling :p Separation of powers; the only appeal to the matter has to go through the higher court.