Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2010, 01:16 PM
 
Rainbow Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Excellent news, long over due. Now the question is will Obama appeal the decision, and disavow everything he or Biden has ever said about how this is indeed the right decision?!
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 01:19 PM
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
I suspect that if we haven't heard their decision before the election it's because they plan not to appeal. If they do plan to appeal, they'll want the right-leaning independents to know that before they vote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 05:27 PM
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
I think this is going to be really interesting. Personally, I think team Obama should just let the 60 days expire. I think there is a 50/50 chance they don't do that, though, despite the fact one of his specific campaign points was the repeal of DADT.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 07:51 PM
 
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
I think Obama wants to repeal the law, but I think he understands that the implementation of equal rights will be more difficult than just changing a law. Most of the military guys I know are rough tough anti-gay macho men who would as soon beat up a gay guy as room with him. (I said MOST, not all before I get in trouble!) Military families tend to be among the most conservative groups in general, so treading lightly is probably responsible in this case.

That said, the way gays are treated in our country is just SHAMEFUL, and I'll be proud to tell my kids in 50 years that I marched in rallies and voted to support gay rights.
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 08:20 PM
 
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
I think it's odd that professionally trained soldiers, battle hard men who volunteer to give their life to following orders designed to accomplish a mission, while said to insure freedom and liberty remain strong and safe here at home, aren't able to fight beside those who are gay and risking just as much, who are precluded from enjoying the freedom to be equal as fellow Americans. Be they soldiers, or civilians.

What does it say to the world, when our troops land on any foreign soil amid the propaganda that precedes their arrival wherein we have arrived to bring "Democracy" to an oppressed people, while those people on average chance to know that many of those soldiers just arrived are gay but do not dare let it be known, because in their home country it's all very democratic to lawfully oppress natural sexuality. While it's perfectly normal to die, in battle and come home as a hero in a flag draped box, that covers someone who was considered a gay man first, and an American citizen second.

I think if soldiers, be they in minority or other, can serve beside gays and atheists in foxholes, knowing full well both are discriminated against in either lawful fashion or by implication, they can stand to be forced out of their bigotry when they are all serving equally to fight, die and bleed together.
DADT speaks more to the immature, insecure, bigoted heterosexual's in uniform, than it ever stands to speak about the gays in the service. As if they can kill, for a cause, but they can't function if they're aware of the sexual identity of that soldier beside them that has their back, catches a bullet before they do, or leads the charge against an enemy who isn't thinking about who's sleeping with whom. But rather, is simply focused on killing anyone in line of sight, wearing an American uniform, bearing a crew cut that are all intended to make every soldier appear as one and the same to that enemy. While it's the American Military policy that puts what amounts to a pink triangle on the chest of certain of those soldiers, singling them out as freedom fighters, for everyone else, but their own personal lives.

Gays in the military can never be free to be themselves, when DADT is in full force. They can't hold hands with their lover in public, off duty and out of uniform, for fear someone in service will see them and report. Back before DADT, gays were hunted in the ranks. Surprise inspections on base housing, like unto the witch hunts of old. Wherein if it was suspect an enlisted person was gay, a surprise inspection would be carried out in an effort to catch them compromised and so they could be drummed out of the service.

DADT put an end to that, by simply making a restriction on both sides of the bed. Don't ask if a soldier is gay, don't "hunt" them. And in return the gay soldier would never ever be free to be themselves, for fear of giving anything away. No speaking about their love life, no physical public demonstrations, no bringing the lover to military functions, no letters from a significant other. No marriage, in those States that permit gay marriage, because the marriage information would get back to CO and other offices regarding a persons next of kin. Not even flirtatious conversations, or a look, could/can pass between gays in the military.

Conservatism is what made all that possible.

If straight families are committed to serving in the ranks, and putting it all on the line, they need to commit to accepting the freedom enlisted are entitled to right here at home. Gays are not a threat to straights. They're people, sexual beings, just like straights. It's an insult to think armed professionally trained killers, defenders of all that America stands for, aren't professional enough to let love be free to be equal in the ranks!

If Obama appeals this, he's a bald faced liar going back on his word prior to the election that gays contributed to, in taking him at his word when he was on the campaign trail paying lip service to their freedom. When, if he appeals this, that's all it was. Just another bit of worthless words, to get the power to remain indifferent to the oppression a minority continues to suffer in a country that by law continues to be a free country for straights only.
[Image: 22194a22.gif]
Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Rainbow Todays Update
Judge likely to deny gov't on gay troops order
Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2010, 07:15 AM
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Something that rarely gets addressed here:

The judge in question, Virginia Phillips, is a District, not Federal, Judge. She does not actually have the legal authority to remove DADT policy. DADT is a Federal law, passed by Congress. It can only be overturned if the Supreme Court - not some District Judge - declares it unconstitutional or Congress votes to overturn it.

Miss Phillips' heart is in the right place, but she's overstepping her boundaries.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2010, 07:57 AM
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
A District judge is a judge of a Federal District. If she did not have jurisdiction, then this matter would not be before her court.

Quote:It can only be overturned if the Supreme Court - not some District Judge - declares it unconstitutional or Congress votes to overturn it.

Miss Phillips' heart is in the right place, but she's overstepping her boundaries.

Incorrect. A federal district court has the authority to rule on this matter. What they don't have, however, is the final say. The government must do what she mandated in her order on a first appeal. If they don't like the response, then they can appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 4th Circuit can give it a partial hearing with 3 judges, called a panel hearing, or decide to give it a full hearing, called an en banc hearing, with the entire court. Depends on the issue. Usually you only get 3 judges. You can make your way up and down the Court of Appeals a few times, finally getting an en banc hearing. If you're still not happy with the outcome, you can ask the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiori which means that the Court agrees to hear your appeal.

There are a few types of cases that, per the Constitution, go directly to the Supreme Court (like if a state sues another state) but otherwise this is the process. And Judge Phillips is well within her legal authority to do what she did. Doesn't mean she's going to be upheld, but she is within her authority.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2010, 02:02 PM
 
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
UPDATE:

Obama requests emergency stay of 'don't ask, don't tell' order
Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2010, 09:36 AM
RE: Judge Grants Worldwide Injunction Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
BnW is correct.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: