Putting aside the charming little habit of certain people of presuming what people know and don’t know, I can’t think of a worse way to handle DADT than this. Maybe Jon Walker can tell me what would happen to all the people who come out or who feel safe in the military during the Obama years after this is signed, but then reversed the MOMENT President Palin comes into office- right after she signs an executive order overturning all funding for overseas abortion. You know that political football, right? Apparently our progressive betters don’t care- this isn’t about the smart, sane, permanent solution, this is about immediate gratification:
This would be a disaster. The last thing we want to do is turn this into an election year game where we ingrain gay-bashing into the system. I think DADT is unconscionable, but I also think treating an issue of civil rights like a game would be unconscionable.
*** Update ***
The best rebuttal I’ve seen to my aversion to the EO approach:
An executive order repealling DADT, in concert with a longer term strategy to attempt to get Congress to officially repeal it, would advance the ball down the field in ways that would probably if not certainly help the fight. There is no reason in the world why a short term and a long term strategy could not have been pursued.
It would have, if done in a timely manner, spared Obama and the dems the pointless wrath of the gay community. In addition, and this is why I adduced the case of Equal Marriage in MA, it would have given at least two years and possibly six for the armed forces themselves to become completely accustomed to out and proud servicemembers and their families. The ability of servicemembers and their families to influence other vets and family organizations positively would probably be a total gain for the full repeal of DADT just as the very existence of equal marriage put gay/straight relations on an entirely new footing in MA.
Out of curiosity, why are the most bitter and personal battles the ones that deal with procedures? There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Jon Walker on me about DADT itself (or, I would guess, ENDA, gay mariage, etc.) Christ, I would have voted for Jon Walker’s health care bill in a NY minute.
TR
Who’s John Walker?
Aside from a smug moron, I mean.
DCPlod
Well, I’m aware that Obama exercises considerable restraint every morning not to verbally beat the shit out of assholes like Jon Walker.
Michael
I’ll be the first to turn the other way and not give a shit when Chief Justice Roberts and his Palin appointed and packed SCOTUS enjoin gay people from being gay, under penalty of imprisonment.
ricky
@TR:
I am sure if you found him in the foxhole next to you it would leave your unit uncohesive.
John Bird
I don’t think DADT is in any way like, say, UN funding for birth control. I think all it would take would be a couple years, max, of DADT-free gay service to make turning back the clock absolutely impossible on a practical, as well as political, level. DADT needs to end now, and the military has to be bent to the interests of the country at large. No pun intended.
Roger Moore
There’s also the question of whether Congress would take a permanent repeal seriously if it were suspended by executive order. There’s a substantial group of Congressional Democrats who are congenital cowards, and they’ll take a suspension by executive order as an excuse not to deal with the issue. We can only force them to pay attention by keeping the current policy in place.
Nick
Fuck gay soldiers in 2017, I want my pony NOW! And when Obama gives it to me, I’ll still call him a bigot because he isn’t pushing Ben Nelson to repeal DOMA!
celticdragonchick
I can.
Doing nothing at all…and that is what he has done. Not one fucking phone call came from the White House to get any support or haggle/twist arms with Snowe or Collins(or anybody else, for that matter), and no time was spent with Reid to ask him if it was a good idea to game Senate Rules and piss off two confirmed votes the way he did.
We are the reliable atm, and they need us to keep giving until it hurts.
c u n d gulag
Ah yes, what better time could there possibly be to bring this up?
Let’s see, the Senate’s NOT in session.
And there’s a ‘change’ election coming (and not positive ‘change’, like we’ve gotten, to some small degree, so far).
So, let’s bitch from the left. Demand the President do what, yes, he could do, but to what end? If he does this right now, he’ll be handing another cultural wedge issue, on top of the economic ones, for the Republicans to club Democrats over the head with. You think they’re bitching about too much Presidnetial power now? Go ahead, egg him on to do this.
Let me ask you, who do you think will be more motivated by Obama’s suspension of DADT? The Democrats? Or, will this motivate the Republicans more.
My guess would be, the Republicans. But what do I know…
Cue the “Obamabot” responses.
cleek
what kind of Executive Order do people think will do the job of overturning a pretty clearly-worded law?
DADT partially avoids the consequences of the law by forbidding people from Asking. but it seems to me that there’s not much wiggle room anywhere else. the law says:
given that an EO can’t overturn a law, what is this proposed EO supposed to do ?
birthmarker
O/T but we rock! I never thought John’s ActBlue page would top $15,000, much less hit $50,000!! Kudos, all!!
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
You needn’t worry. The pony will still be waiting to be found in 2017, because we will not see any action on DADT in all likelihood until well after that date if our new GOP congress has anything to say about it.
aimai
Well, I agree and I don’t agree. The idea that there will continue to be an anti gay backlash once an executive order is signed is a theory, yet to be tested. In a similar case, when MA approved equal marriage, there was a whole lot of talk about how there would be a huge backlash inside MA and the new interpretation of the law/out state constitution would be overturned by outraged anti “judicial activist” right wingers. It simply didn’t happen. There was a whole lot of fussing, locally and then the new law became the new normal. I don’t even think we see the same low level mobilizing around the issue that we used to by the usual suspects. I mean, locally, you seldom even see the agitating over “gays in the schoolbooks” that you saw right before and after equal marriage became the law of the land.
I think gay activists aren’t entirely wrong if they think that Obama, having tried the longer and more elaborate method, could *also* simply cut to the chase and do the executive order thing. People’s opinions change a whole lot faster than you think once facts on the ground change.
I’m not supporting the current wave of hysterical anti Obamaism on the left or from the gay community. I’m appalled by the phrasing that was used by wyldpyrate or whoever the hell that was on the earlier thread when he referred to our President as a “cornered wharf rat.” I mean, the amount of personal hatred that Obama is getting thrown at him, and confused political thinking and gamesmanship that the gay community is expressing is both horrifying and counterproductive. But that doesn’t mean that signing the executive order wouldn’t, in fact, be a politically smart move. I think it would be, or would have been at an earlier point in the struggle. Not because its symbolic but because that’s been my experience watching the MA situation unfold.
aimai
Jules
@celticdragonchick:
How do you know these things?
Are you the fly in the wall in the White House or is this just the conventional wisdom floating around now?
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
That’s a lie and you know it. It was widely reported that Vice President Biden was on the phone with Collins the day OF the vote.
So tell me, how much money did you give to Carl Paladino’s party?
hopeful
This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Doesn’t it make sense to repeal DADT because it is the right thing to do? Force the Palins and the republicans to change it when they get in power and expose them for what they are.
Saying that there is no sense in doing something because the republicans will only change it, seems ridiculous and cowardly. If you repeal DADT then the republicans have to come up with their own policy, it doesn’t just revert back to the old policy.
John do you work for the Obama administration? Do you think you would feel different if you were the one being discriminated against?
ruemara
Not to parrot what Cleek said, but how can an executive order set out to contravene the law? Do any of the legal scholars on the twitters have a 140 character pathway that crafts an EO that suspends DADT, without letting Congress off the hook, that also has a nodding acquaintanceship with upholding the rule of law?
Lowkey
@John Bird: Can’t agree with you. It took 100 years of gross political football for African-Americans to be fully re-integrated into the armed services. I see no reason a (very) few years of sane policy would end this particular vector of Culture War bullshit.
Joe Beese
@Nick:
A fierce delegator.
But it’s not like Obama had time to make such calls himself. He was too busy congratulating the WNBA champions.
Nick
@aimai:
No, it wouldn’t, because when Congress washes their hands of the situation, these same hysterical gays will still whine about Obama not pushing a permanent repeal.
He shouldn’t do anything merely to please them, because he can’t, he should do what’s best and what’s best is a permanent repeal
Catsy
@Nick:
It’s not a lie, it’s just CDC lecturing from her imagination again.
Although the delusional arrogance of assuming that one is aware of every communication that passed between the White House and members of Congress over this issue is quite breathtaking.
Chrisd
@celticdragonchick:
Well, he’s talked quite a bit about how he would like to end DADT, so there’s that.
And should a bill repealing the current policy ever make it to his desk, his brain would fire enough neurons to push the pen to sign it. I believe this.
And should the military advocate some compromise bullshit keeping gays away from combat positions in order to protect hetero soldiers while showering, I think he would be okay with that, too.
So there’s a lot to be grateful for.
Linda Featheringill
@celticdragonchick:
And how do you know that?
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
Fuck off. The contents of the call were also widely reported and you know damned well that no attempt was made to change her mind. Biden reflected with her on their experiences in the Senate.
Obama did find time to make a phone call to a sports team.
Priorities, after all.
I’m sure you have a barbed wire axe wrapped handle you need to practice shoving up your ass.
Seriously.
Nick
@Joe Beese:
Oh yeah, because no President ever utilizes the Vice President to push legislation through Congress. I mean WTF, you people are getting ridiculous now.
I’m sure Collins would have hopped to had Obama called her and not Biden.
You know, he just can’t please you. Why bother trying?
Kryptik
I think the problem with the Executive order idea is twofold.
1) It’s a federal law. Just because the Exec opts not to enforce it in totality doesn’t mean it’s not law, and doesn’t mean the Executive Order can’t be undone.
2) If the Executive Order is made, then it more than likely takes away any incentive for Congress to do anything in the now, because…hey, it’s a problem for LATER now! And giving Congress incentive for continued fecklessness is not exactly something helpful.
John Bird
@Nick:
The fact that you see honoring servicemen and servicewomen as a “pony” is horrifying. These people are dying for you and me.
Lee from NC
@c u n d gulag:
I’m so tired of this. For the past TWO years, all gay people keep hearing is “the time just isn’t right.” It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.
MissKG
So — it is important not to do the right thing because someone in the future might undo it. Even your kids aren’t going to buy that one.
El Cid
@aimai: The left — the actual left — hasn’t recently been allied with Democratic politicians in general, though of course in times past the CPUSA kept always talking about working toward revolutionary soshullism but the need to support Democrats in each upcoming elections as barriers to the fascist takeover. They weren’t wrong about the 2nd part.
Nick
@celticdragonchick: I know you hate him Celtic, you don’t have to lie and be obnoxious about it.
homerhk
If Obama can overturn DADT by executive fiat, why can’t President Palin/Romney/Beck/Palladino do so with healthcare reform, wall street reform etc.? what’s the point of Congress?
I bet a million bucks that Jon Walker is also one of those who thinks Obama has unconscionably extended executive power (notwithstanding the various court judgments – i.e. the judicial branch – that have basically agreed with his positions).
August J. Pollak
I don’t understand your logic.
How is that any different than saying congress shouldn’t bother trying to repeal DADT because a hard-right Republican congress will come back in and ban it again?
The comparison to foreign abortion funding is equally illogical, as the latter is a singular act– if they’re legal now, they can happen, if they’re not, they can’t. If DADT is restricted, however, and gays come out in the ranks, and a future right-wing president chooses to override the order allowing them to, then the story is that the president is effectively terminating a possibly double-digit percentage of the U.S. military.
celticdragonchick
@Linda Featheringill:
Go to Americablog, Pams House Blend etc.
http://www.google.com/search?q=president+made+no+phone+call+on+dadt&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
John Bird
@cleek:
Easy – it’s the President’s authority that rules here by Constitutional precedent. There will be a court case, yes, and the President will likely win. And it’s going to take a lot less time for that to go all the way through, apparently, than it is to get Congress to act – not to mention we NEED that precedent for future integration of the armed forces.
cleek
i like how Obama is to blame because a couple of Republicans chose to hand the Dems in an election year.
lessee… i’m a GOP Senator, it’s two months before the election, and my options are:
1. vote Yes on a bill that will piss-off the GOP base and possibly hurt my chances of being in the Senate majority.
2. vote No and piss-off the Dems’ base, thus helping my chances of being in the majority.
tough call!
cleek
@John Bird:
whaa?
Lee from NC
@Nick:
“…these same hysterical gays…” and “…WTF, you people…”
Nice. With friends like these…
Lavocat
Methinks JonWalkerDC punked yer ass.
Just out of curiosity, John, would you feel this way about any other minority? Wrong is wrong, dude.
Still, I expect nothing more than Obama to continue to piss off his base. I’m already gone.
I WAS a Democrat. I’m a proud Independent now.
John Cole
@August J. Pollak:
Do you really need me to explain the difference between an executive order and a law and the different barriers to changing either one?
thefncrow
@aimai:
But that’s something the voters actually had to approve, and that animus over that particular issue may lessen.
In this case, there would never be a need for any voter to actually approve of this action, it would just be the result of voting a Republican into the White House.
And don’t doubt for a single moment that a Republican wouldn’t reverse that executive order. It’s a purely legal act that would allow them to purge mass numbers of homosexuals out of the military, all while blaming the situation on how the Obama administration was “ignoring the law as written”. There would be no hesitation at all to issuing that order. They get to bash gays AND blame Obama for it, there’s no way in hell that’s not going to be done.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@cleek: Someone last night tried to bring up subsection (e) as the basis, but that clearly pertains only to someone who said they were gay for the specific purpose of avoiding further service, i.e. they want to be separated.
The other thing people cite is the stop-loss order provision, but subsection (a) clearly means that the individual whose separation is prevented must be essential to national security, and subsection (b) indicates that any stop-loss can only be in force when reserve components have been recalled to active duty, so it also is not permanent.
toujoursdan
@Lee from NC:
Not all gays are hysterical and not all of us believe this is as simple as an EO.
John Bird
@Roger Moore:
Jesus Christ. You can’t possibly be this inhuman on an issue of human rights.
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
He was asking for it.
With that last comment he made…he would have had the back of my hand across his face and a swift kick to his groin if we were face to face. No exaggeration. Fuck his hurt fee fees.
Punchy
Gotta agree with John Walker, John. Just like same-sex marriage), once gays are allowed to serve openly and shown not to hurt morale (however that is supposed to happen), reversing it wont be possible.
Outside of fucked up Caly, you dont see same-sex state marriage rules being flipped around in election years, do you?
Nick
@John Bird:
I don’t see signing and executive order that can easily be overturned as “honoring” them. I think it’s a terrible and risky thing to do only meant to give temporary gratification to a whiny minority who can’t be bothered to push legislators to do their jobs because they can’t get over the fact their candidate lost the Presidential primary. (and don’t tell me that isn’t part of me because I was around the “Don’t let Obama win, he’s black and black people hate gays” crap from 2008 here in New York). Honoring them would be permanently repealing it.
geg6
@celticdragonchick:
Oh, cut me a goddam break. This such complete and utter bullshit that even a lifelong liberal has call it out as such.
Women don’t donate to the Dems, I suppose. Nor African Americans, I guess. Nor straight male and female average every fucking day liberals. No, it’s only the GLBT arm of the party that funds every election for Dems and the party will be financially broke without them.
Get a grip. I’ve been giving to Dems for almost 40 years, in cash and sweat equity. I still don’t have most of my ponies either. Please show me how it’s Dems that are holding up the repeal of DADT. Show me exactly where those 60 votes are that you claim Obama can pull out of his ass.
nancydarling
I totally understand the position of the gay community in wanting action now. At the same time President Obama has a juggling act going on with the military brass. Can’t we cut him a little slack? It will happen, people. Maybe not tomorrow, but very soon.
aimai
@Nick:
Nick, you have me confused with someone else. Someone who thinks you know fuck all about anything. You don’t. My position is perfectly reasonable strategically. If you disagree with it you disagree with it for reasons that have nothing to do with reality, just your opinion. Let me restate my position very slowly:
An executive order repealling DADT, in concert with a longer term strategy to attempt to get Congress to officially repeal it, would advance the ball down the field in ways that would probably if not certainly help the fight. There is no reason in the world why a short term and a long term strategy could not have been pursued.
It would have, if done in a timely manner, spared Obama and the dems the pointless wrath of the gay community. In addition, and this is why I adduced the case of Equal Marriage in MA, it would have given at least two years and possibly six for the armed forces themselves to become completely accustomed to out and proud servicemembers and their families. The ability of servicemembers and their families to influence other vets and family organizations positively would probably be a total gain for the full repeal of DADT just as the very existence of equal marriage put gay/straight relations on an entirely new footing in MA.**
aimai
I’d like to add that in the specifically military context this is not at all a question of gay rights vs. democratic voters rights with gay people sort of invalidly intruding their personal concerns into “our” political struggle. Every gay person, if I’m not mistaken and test tubing hasn’t taken over, has two or more parents and a host of siblings. All of those people’s interests and votes are part of the democratic coalition. Anyone think that the families of gay soldiers don’t also care about the repeal of DADT?
Lee from NC
@toujoursdan:
Maybe. But the ones who are pushing hard for a fix are the ones who are “hysterical”. The ones sitting meekly on the back of the bus, by implication, are not the hysterical gays.
John Bird
@Nick:
I see. I’m wondering if you’d have preferred that we hadn’t passed any Civil War amendments until we could pass civil rights legislation.
D-Chance.
Looks like we need another blue thermometer thingy to combat smugness… after all, some people evidently have free cash burning holes in their pockets. Put it to good use!
Nick
@August J. Pollak:
One requires the stroke of a pen, the other requires passing two houses of Congress, one with a filibuster, and being signed into law by a President.
toujoursdan
@Lee from NC: Fuck off.
I have also worked hard to repealed it. I was on the phone calling my congressperson and sending emails to others calling for repeal.
But I also believe that this isn’t as simple as an EO for the reasons Cleek gave. It doesn’t make me less committed, it means I live in the real world.
BenA
@Lee from NC:
Yes, because commenting/posting on a blog from your living room couch is the same as being black and getting arrested in Alabama in the 1960s.
Midnight Marauder
@John Cole:
That would seem to be the case, apparently.
Just a stunning level of political obtuseness.
August J. Pollak
@John Cole:
Yes. Perhaps I should repeat the question.
How is that any different than saying congress shouldn’t bother trying to repeal DADT because a hard-right Republican congress will come back in and ban it again?
I don’t need a high school civics lesson. I need to hear why one is more or less logical an argument than the other, since that’s what I, y’know, asked for.
geg6
@hopeful:
You are aware, aren’t you, of the difference between an executive order that only kicks the can down the road and an actual piece of legislation that actually repeals a law?
If not, you probably should listen more than talk here if you don’t want to get crushed by those who do.
John Bird
@cleek:
It’s like a million other things where people frown and say, “but, the President can’t do that! his hands are tied!”
Often, there is a strong Constitutional argument to be made for executive power, it’s just a controversial one. FDR relied on this to change America for the better, as did Truman, as did LBJ. Take it to the courts and push hard. Most of the time you’ll lose, and then you pursue the parley-with-Congress avenue. But when you win, you win big for future Constitutional interpretation of social welfare programs and human rights.
You may be someone who is extremely skeptical of all expansion of executive power. I am not – it is necessary to adapt to a changing world. The question is when and where it will be advanced and challenged.
Suffern Ace
@Punchy: You don’t see many same sex marriage bans overturned by voters either. In many states, you just aren’t going to be given the option of marrying, but hey…all those state wide bans must have been put in place by Democrats hoping to secure electoral advantages.
Face
Didn’t Bush do this w/r/t torture? Or is that inaccurate?
celticdragonchick
@geg6:
Aww shucks!
Ya got me!
75% of the country reliably polls in favor of scrapping DADT, but Obama couldn’t possibly say a thing to any senator about that because it would be…
What the fuck ever.
We are still in exactly the same place we were under Bush (Senior!)…with the one exception that if somebody burns a cross in my front yard before killing me and my family(I am rather well armed, so that would be a bit difficult)…it MIGHT be investigated as a federal hate crime.
Nice to know.
Nick
@aimai:
Not in Massachusetts, but it led to draconian amendments nationwide and two state overturning legalization of it by referendum.
If Massachusetts could’ve overturned that law in 2003 as quickly as California and Maine did, they would have absolutely done it. Thankfully, that process wasn’t as easy there.
John Cole
@August J. Pollak: For starters, no one is arguing against repealing DADT legislation for the reasons you’ve cited (a hard right Republican congress might repeal it), and a lot of that is because of the difficulties in overturning a bill versus overturning an executive order. Once the bill is passed, it will be permanent. All this blather about repealing health care is just that.
Executive orders, on the other hand, are about as permanent as the toilet paper in my bathroom.
cleek
repealing DADT ? that means going back to the law as it’s written ?
the law says that homosexuals will be discharged. DADT tries to sidestep the law.
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
Obama spent a month…A MONTH…flying around the country making a very effective case for repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich. He flew to swing states, states with REpublican senators, even Democratic Senators, and the end up was…Congress didn’t do it because they didn’t have the votes.
And you think he would have easily changed Susan Collins’ mind because?
…because you just need to blame him to rationalize your irrational hate for him.
Joe Beese
@celticdragonchick:
LOL. You wouldn’t dare to physically threaten everyone you encounter in meatspace who disagrees with you because you would be rightly afraid of having your teeth bashed in. No, I’m quite sure you confine your bully-boy act to safe spaces like the Internet.
@MissKG:
Here’s how it works:
Obama: I want a public option. But I don’t have 60 votes for it.
(later)
Obama: I don’t have 60 votes for anything. So I’ll have to use reconciliation.
Us: As long as you’re using reconciliation, you can give us the public option now.
Obama: This isn’t the right time for a public option.
Or…
Obama: I want to end DADT discharges. But it’s better if it’s done through legislation.
(later)
Obama: The legislation failed. They told me after I got off the phone with the WNBA.
Us: Then you should sign an executive order.
Obama: This isn’t the right time for an executive order.
The three-card monte game goes on. And the party loyalists are forced into another intellectual pretzel twist to justify it.
Lee from NC
@toujoursdan:
Dumb comment. I actually am gay and face barrages of discriminatory behavior every day. I could easily be evicted from renting in my city just for being gay and would have no legal recourse. So I wouldn’t even have a couch to post comments from.
Kryptik
@August J. Pollak:
The difference is about 434 people. As in, the number of extra people who would have to debate over that decision compared to one person to decide on that executive order.
That’s why there’s all the effort expended. You’ve seen the difficulty in actually getting the repeal past. Getting a repeal of the repeal would probably take at least as much effort and anguish on a future Congress’ part, which would be a lot less likely than a future Republican president deciding to scratch an executive order made by a predecessor.
Linda Featheringill
@John Bird:
Tell me. Why are gay people volunteering to be cannon fodder?
lacp
There’s obviously a big part of this debate that I’ve missed. Why are gay people so eager to run around the world slaughtering wedding parties? I’d sorta like to be discriminated against in that way.
cleek
@celticdragonchick:
and that is 100% irrelevant.
the only number that matters is 60.
toujoursdan
@Lee from NC:
I’m gay too and face the same challenges. So you can go fuck your smug ass off.
geg6
@Lee from NC:
I’m sure Frederick Douglass would love to discuss with you the timeline of civil rights battles. But he’s dead for a hundred years as his people still fight battles he fought for back then (14th Amendment repeal ring a bell with you?). And you are bitching about 2 years in which I have yet to see the GLBT community do a single concrete or productive action to get Congress to do its job?
Get over yourselves. As a woman, I’m still battling for the right to control my uterus. This is almost 40 years after Roe v. Wade. You don’t hear me whining that Obama could change that by waving his magic “stern talking to” wand at Congress.
Amanda in the South Bay
@cleek:
I feel like a broken record always bringing this link up:
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order
It goes to show ya some people have been thinking this through, not concern trolling about Obama pulling a W with executive power.
Even if the game is rigged (i.e. 60 votes needed in Senate, Blue Dog intransigence, worthless GOP senators from Maine), I’d still like to see the WH and Dems in Congress go down swinging, if only to help fire up the base for that big day coming in a couple of weeks.
I guess I don’t see this as a binary decision-I have no problems criticizing Obama and Congress, a lot more than most people here, but obviously I’m going to hold my nose and vote (in fact, already filled out my absentee ballot) for straight Dem this fall, because the other option is much, much worse.
Nick
@Lee from NC:
No, they’re the ones who are rational. The “hysterical” ones were the ones who were flailing around screaming Obama wasn’t doing enough to get Susan Collins to vote “aye” while the rational ones were calling Susan Collins’ office.
Face
They absolutely will. And 5 out of 9 Justices will say that the Constitution is explicit in allowing this. In Article K, or the 38th Amendment, or something.
Linda Featheringill
I sent this note to John by email because I wanted to say all of this and didn’t know where to put it. But since we have this thread going, I’ll put it here.
Thanks, John.
On a previous thread, I said:
“Okay, you are angry. A bunch of you guys are angry. That’s okay. But you are also remarkably self-centered and oblivious to a lot of stuff going on in the world.”
That’s what I said and I stand by it.
Who am I to talk that way? I’ll tell you who I am. I am old, I am ugly, I am poor, I am overworked, and I am bisexual.
Bisexuality has been a real gift to me. I nearly always surrounded by beautiful, desirable people. It is nice to be wanted but the real pleasure comes from my own lust. The heat from my desire has warmed my very soul during many times of trouble. And it is good to have around during the good times, too.
That heat is mine and nobody can take it away from me. Silly laws, silly people, and silly philosophies cannot rob me of that life-sustaining warmth.
On the other hand, I am a member of the human race. I care about the people who are alive now and who will be alive after I am gone. I would like to leave the world better than it was when I came into it. And how can I do that if I spend all my spare time sulking because the world doesn’t validate my sexuality?
I think that these are fluid times, in which we can affect the future through the choices we make. There are many possible futures ahead of us. Some of these possibilities are rather pleasant and some are downright grim. We have to make the right choices in the present time.
How can we decide which are the better choices if we focus entirely on our own angst?
Nick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
They did and you’re still not giving them credit for it. You’re asking to see them do what they already did. They held a vote, they slammed their no votes, and the “base” didn’t get “fired” up.
El Cid
@Face: Heck, I think we’re lucky that the Supremes haven’t on their own declared the passage of HCR to be un-Constitutional and replaced the Administration with President DeMint because, you know, fuck the Constushun.
August J. Pollak
Well then if your logic is that threatening to overturn legislation is bluster, then I expect a defense of this as more than bluster:
You know what, maybe you can tell us. Seriously.
With 5-10% of the country being gay, let’s be conservative here and suggest 3 or 4 percent of American soldiers are gay. Let’s propose even half of them come out if an executive order blocking DADT enforcement is signed. In other words, let’s suggest roughly 20,000 active duty soldiers came out. That’s about 1-2% of active military/reserves.
Now let’s suggest President Hypothetical reinstates the ban. In other words, the President just kicked 20,000 soldiers out of the army.
Twenty. Thousand. Hell, make it only ten thousand. Make it any number larger than a dozen and it’s still a huge story.
Are you saying that would actually happen? Especially if it’s President Palin and we’re invading Iran? Because even I don’t think she’s that stupid.
John Cole
Bullshit. They got totally fired up. And then spent the next three weeks furious with Obama and all the people who voted to repeal DADT.
celticdragonchick
@Joe Beese:
I’m female, last I checked…and my response would be the same. If he had said that in person, I would have done just what I said.
I have no love whatsoever for “Nick” and I would not be sorry to see him slapped silly in real life.
Keep your bully boy bullshit for somebody else.
Immanentize
What has been said about Universities could be said about this question:
“[Blogger] politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.”
John Cole
@August J. Pollak: Yes. I am absolutely convinced the next GOP President would, the very first day, either after the overseas abortion ban or the EO opening up more national land for drilling and mining, sign an EO overturning this.
For christ sakes, we’ve spent the last decade in two wars, spending trillions on national security, and they haven’t thought twice about tossing out gay interpreters. In fact, the Republicans just voted AS A BLOC to keep throwing them out.
Why are you, in the face of all the evidence, willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt?
Nick
@August J. Pollak:
Absolutely.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Nick:
I’m giving them credit by the fact that I voted for every candidate this fall with the word “Democrat” next to their names on the ballot.
Scott P.
Not this crap again. This won’t stop getting rebunked. The public option couldn’t be passed in reconciliation because it doesn’t qualify under reconciliation rules. Period. Moreover nobody has ever shown any evidence for 50, let alone 60 votes for reconciliation.
So apart from 20% of the country, it never happens? Not to mention the difference in effort needed to rescind an executive order vs. the effort needed to overturn a court decision.
Comrade Mary
The ban is in force NOW, 30,000 soldiers are at risk, and a certain number are being discharged. Not anywhere 30,000, though. It will be the same step of slow-drip misery we’re dealing with now. Maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, but you won’t see 30k soldiers kicked out.
But I’m sure you’ll grade President Palin on the curve anyway.
Tractarian
Now that you’ve basically conceded the argument in your update, isn’t it time to revise this post title?
Or, by “Smug Bullshit”, are you referring to your original argument that an EO would be counter-productive?
lacp
@John Cole: Perhaps the answer is to make sure there are no more Republican presidents.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@August J. Pollak: History may not be a predictor of future performance, but Wilson allowed his cronies to completely reverse the advancements blacks were making in the United States. It can happen. Remember, teabaggers are the people who want the government to cut Social Security, but the government better not touch theirs. Gutting the military and invading a country at the same time wouldn’t be a problem: They would just blame Obama’s cuts in spending if it fails.
I’m also in the camp that says an OE would just cause senators to say they don’t have to fix the problem.
aimai
What? I get front paged as reasonable and I don’t even get my pseudonym attached? !(!)
Just kidding.
aimai
Kryptik
@Tractarian:
I don’t think it’s a concession, because the rebuttal is, for all purposes, an ideal situation. What we have is a significantly unideal Congress, and if the pattern holds, as soon as the EO is signed they’ll lose all incentive to actually do jack shit about DADT because ‘there are other battles to fight’. That, combined with little time left for this particular Congress and an even more unideal Congress ahead, means that such an idea situation is bunk.
That said, it really is looking like the EO is the only way DADT will be shelved any time soon, even for as fleeting and temporary a moment as it’d be, because our Congress is a total worthless sack and only looking to become even more worthless.
Joe Beese
@celticdragonchick:
I truly wish this weren’t bullshit – though I know it is. Because actual meatspace assault like that which you describe would quickly get you arrested or beaten to a pulp.
celticdragonchick
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Possibly, and the historical point is well taken.
The other parallel to draw is that it will take another generation or longer from this point to actually get anything done wrt DOMA, DADT etc.
It took nearly one hundred years for African Americans…and that fight hasn’t stopped by any means.
Kryptik
@lacp:
Unfortunately, considering how quick the nationwide turn on Obama has come, it really does feel like regardless of support for any actual policies or measures, the country’s total and utter loathing of anything ‘liberal’ or Democratic far outweighs the potential skepticism of the Republicans utter intellectual bankruptcy.
Linda Featheringill
@lacp:
I’ll vote for that!
Amanda in the South Bay
@John Cole:
Yeah, but assuming ( a big if, I know) that (insert number here) how many thousands of servicemembers come out as LG or B, discharging them all would be substantially more difficult than the individual stories we’ve heard over the past several years about highly trained/and or decorated personnel being discharged for coming out**. For starters, it’d probably paralyze the legal system at several installations for a long time. It’d really impact military readiness in a big way.*
*But the GOP is so fucking fucked up I wouldn’t put it past them. their commitment to rationality is limited at best.
**Hehe, I guess I would actually be included in that number of people discharged in the past several years (DLI graduate), though for coming out as trans rather than LG or B.
EDIT: I suppose, to use a legal analogy, it’d be like allowing LGB servicemembers to serve by estoppel.
Punchy
The politics of Exclusion After Inclusion declaration is waaaaaaaaaaaay diff (and more difficult) than a Still Excluded declaration. Once Obama allows gays to serve, to, years later, suddenly re-exclude them will likely bring charges of bigotry from everywhere, including Generals. I dont think a R president outside of somebody fucking insane (Palin, Newt) would dare attempt that.
Try this experiment: Monday, dont give your child ice cream. Tuesday, give him a bowl for 5 seconds, then take it away. Tell me which one leads to more screaming.
celticdragonchick
@Joe Beese:
Whatever. My reaction was truthful. You are not part of it. Bother somebody else.
Nick
@Kryptik: I think we’re also missing a really important point, which is even if an EO is signed, it does not change the fact that it is ILLEGAL to be homosexual in the military. DADT was simply a way to prevent gay soldiers from facing prosecution for violating the MCJ. Until that changes, which can only be changed via Congress, gay soldiers can still be discharged, only now they can face a court martial.
There’s any argument that Lawrence v. Texas carries over to the MCJ, but we won’t know for sure until the first soldiers face court martials.
Kryptik
@Nick:
Mnnn…that’s a valid point too that I overlooked. Technically, all DADT does is say ‘you can’t go actively scouring for homosexual soldiers’, and even then it still happens. It still criminalizes serving as a gay soldier.
August J. Pollak
@John Cole:
If you truly believe that a Republican president would sign an executive order that would instantly discharge tens of thousands of active duty troops, then I don’t see how you don’t believe a GOP-led congress would equally try to actually legislate a DADT reinstatement if the removal had passed last month. Lord knows they would equally believe that same lunatic president would sign it.
Which ultimately makes the sad reality that gay troops are going to be abused by a GOP leadership in any regard. So I guess we have to disagree on whether or not the current president should simply do the right thing.
cleek
@Amanda in the South Bay:
ok, i think that makes sense to me. but it also seems like it would create a really flimsy and fragile situation – one that could be demolished as easily as DADT %.
repealing the legislation seems like the only real solution, IMO.
—
% remember, DADT is what allows gays to serve at all. it’s better than what we’d have otherwise. “repealing DADT” would create an “Ask, Tell, Expell” situation.
Omnes Omnibus
@Joe Beese: Joe Biden has a long history with the Senators who were “persuadable.” There are reports that Olympia Snowe does not like Obama on a personal level. So, in that case, might it not be a better idea to have Biden working the phones on the issue?
celticdragonchick
@Joe Beese:
Something else…
You get away with saying truly effed up stuff online simply because you know there is no consequence.
People tend to be a little more circumspect in real life because they know damned well that there are real consequences (social and otherwise) in face to face interactions.
Nick may or may not have made that comment in real life to me, but my reaction would absolutely have been what I described. I strongly believe in immediate and forceful sanctions to unacceptable speech…physical sanctions if necessary. You can take it or leave it, but that is my position.
I have had to do it only once, but it was effective.
And yeah…it was a guy who was bigger than me and I though I was going to be fired for it since we were on the job.
He never made the comment again and I wasn’t fired.
John Cole
I think they WOULD try to overturn the law. I just don’t think they would be successful. They will, however, be successful overturning an EO.
Which is why we talked about the difference in difficulty in overturning a law versus an EO.
cat48
Is this Mr. Walker from FDL? He’s written some wonky little articles if it is him. Hard for me to believe he does not get this.
Also2, I would bet on 2 yrs maybe w/a new econ crash/foreclosuregate coming. Ok, this will be the Obama’s Katrina you guys at FDL long for.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Nick: And then we’d have the Republican led Impeachment trial for Obama not following the law. Things would be even more fun then.
(More dug up history) During the 50s the south tried to use the defense that they weren’t enforcing the law anyway, so it was OK. One of the justices made the point that not enforcing the law is not the same as repealing it. That is also relevant here.
Tractarian
@Kryptik: Agreed. It’s just a little funny to see Cole hammering “Smug Bullshit” at the beginning of the post, and then by the end, he’s saying the usual “Can’t we all just get along” stuff.
Suck It Up!
@celticdragonchick:
you either got this shit from dan savage or sullivan. were you in his office? did you talk to collins and snowe?
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Joe Beese:
Factually wrong. Obama had 60 votes for the Senate bill. We know this because it got 60 votes. However, that occurred before Scott Brown took office, at which point the 60 votes were no longer there. The House refused to pass the Senate bill unamended. What went through reconciliation was only the changes to the bill the Senate originally passed, all of which met a very strict test of eligibility under reconciliation rules.
Cat
I imagine they’d find out there are a lot more of them in the military then they had imagined and in 2017 they can’t discharge them because they’d never be able to replenish them.
I imagine you would get more LGBT recruits during Obama’s administration to make up for the current recruiting shortfall.
Its a risk to think the mythical 2017 Republican president doesn’t have the balls to kick out all of the LGBT service members at once, but its a pretty big stick the 2017 Democratic president could use against them.
Even if you are right and the ‘center’ is ok with seperate but equal, that kind of bigotry is kind of hard to swallow.
John Cole
Are you all watching some different Republican party than I am? They simply don’t give a shit about what is and what is not popular, and they don’t care about the screaming. For the love of fucking christ, they are going to go after Social Security and Medicare, the most popular programs in the land.
Have you all forgotten who we are dealing with?
Kryptik
@John Cole:
Again, the big difference is about 534 (embarassingly, I only counted the house before, not the whole of Congress).
John Cole
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN): Just give up.
ruemara
Then maybe, what we are talking about it is a set of clear cut modifications to the enforcement of DADT, for such time as it is enforceable. Perhaps, instead of bashing each other and the President, we contacted our congresspeople and our president with these modifications as desired in an EO.
Tata
This thread’s appalling.
Cole et al: If you whining gays don’t vote Dem, the Repubs take power!
Gay Liberals: Nice. Also: the Dems no longer represent us.
Cole et al: But…Repubs!
Gay Liberals: The Dems don’t fight for Dem ideals.
Cole et al: You’re stupid!
Gay Liberals: Um…my basic human rights are actually important to me. Yours seem fine, though.
Cole et al: But…Repubs! They’re crrrrrazy.
Gay Liberals: Yeah. About that: we have money and time, and the Dems have power. You’d think this would be two great tastes that taste great together but the Dems want our entire Halloween candy stash.
Cole et al: Well, it’s not like the bully on the next block wasn’t going to get it anyway.
Nobody’s learning a thing. This convo is going nowhere.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Amanda in the South Bay: What a crock. That analysis basically says two things, neither of which I buy. The first is that the President can stay within the law by stating that all gay servicemembers are essential to national security. That’s a crock of shit. The second is that the President can simply refuse to obey the plain meaning of the law, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop him, neener neener.
Do we really have to go through, again, why the latter is a bad idea?
John Cole
@Tractarian: That was smug bullshit. I just spent two weeks with Walker’s partner pretending I didn’t know how many votes it took for reconciliation, now Walker is pretending I don’t understand the EO situation.
That is smug bullshit, and wondering why these procedural fights is so nasty in no way changes the fact that it was smug bullshit. They aren’t arguing in good faith- they’re just pretending I’m “too stupid” to know about the EO.
Sentient Puddle
This bears repeating:
Scope, people, scope.
John Cole
I haven’t called gays whiners at all. They have every single right to be fucking FURIOUS.
I just can’t figure out why they are furious at the people who voted in their favor.
And now some jackass (money on Beese or Loblaw) will say “Thank you for telling gay people what they have a right to be mad about.”
I quit.
celticdragonchick
@Tata:
Pretty much, and you just about substitute the comments for this thread from the last twenty or so posts on this subject.
The hell with it. I have to go to class anyway.
Jim
Jon Walker is terrible and contributes nothing. Since the ACA was passed, he’s resorted to concern-trolling Democrats at every bend possible. See his gem yesterday about the Manchin ad–yeah, I’m sure Manchin would be appearing left-and-right with Obama if FDL had “won” on a whole bunch of issues.
I think you can find everything you need to know about FireDogLake from Hamsher’s soliciation for “What Can Obama Do Without Congress?” yesterday. She plainly states that the problem is the economic crisis. Nearly every response has to do with drones or DADT, except those that say Obama should “bring back the WPA,” as if that’s something he can fund with the stroke of a pen.
Linda Featheringill
@cleek:
No. The law, as written, the one that didn’t pass in congress, simply nullifies that entire section in the Code that deals with homosexuality in the military. Once that section is nullified, it would not longer be against the law to Serve While Gay.
hopeful
@geg6:
I know the difference between an executive order and a law passed by congress, but you do realize that DADT was declared unconstitutional in court this year? Doesn’t it make sense to suspend this policy because of that ruling? Why appeal it like the Obama administration is doing and just accept it as law?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Cat: John’s already pointed out how abortion funding is a political football, and we saw how willing they were to cut translators during active combat. Cutting the gays will cause God to fight on their side. He might even send down a pillar of fire to smite the enemy.
Tractarian
@Tata:
Especially, apparently, you.
You see, Cole et al.’s point is not that “If you whining gays don’t vote Dem, the Repubs take power!”
The point is this: “If Obama had done what you whining gays demanded he do (i.e. repeal DADT with an EO), it would have been disastrous for your human rights in the long term.”
Yes, Obama is saying that Teh Gheyz don’t know what’s good for them, so he’s not gonna give them what they want. And guess what, he’s right!
MBunge
@celticdragonchick: I strongly believe in immediate and forceful sanctions to unacceptable speech…physical sanctions if necessary.
So, how many times have you responded physically to unacceptable speech?
Mike
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Tata: You left out the:
Obot: But Congress tried to vote on repealing DADT.
Anti-Obot: But they didn’t try hard enough.
We’re all over the map here.
Tata
Dear Tractarian,
Nice moniker. Good thing it’s not Reading Comprehension King because, sucker, you ain’t.
Kisses,
Tata
john b
@celticdragonchick:
women (if in public) can get away with that on occasion, whereas men would often get into a serious fight if they pulled that sort of stuff regularly.
ruemara
@hopeful:
Probably because the ruling was done by a lower court who’s judgements can be overturned by a higher court, ergo, the ruling is not final. If we’re hoping that a conservative would not bother taking it to a higher court, then I am pleased at how positive minded we are about our fellow, albeit misguided, humans.
Scott P.
First, the latest statistics I have seen suggest something under 5% of the American public is gay.
Gays are less likely to enlist than heterosexuals, in part because of discrimination, so let’s say 1-2% of the military is gay.
There’s no way half of those come out. The military is still incredibly homophobic among the rank and file. I’d say 1/10 is pushing it.
So we’d be looking at 1,000-2,000 discharges.
But it would be foolish to think the new EO would be phrased so all of those happened at once. It would call for “investigations” into non-compliance with the law, and you’d see maybe 25-30 kicked out per month for 48 months.
Sly
Clearly having the one guy in his administration who had spent thirty six years in the United States Senate, and who spent the bulk of that time cultivating relationships with nearly every Senator he worked with (especially self-described moderates like Snowe and Collins), lobby Senators for a particular piece of legislation demonstrates that the President is a very unskilled exploiter of the political resources at his disposal.
Amanda in the South Bay
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
So every time stop loss has been enacted since 9/11, its been unconstitutional? Because that’s basically what they’d be using to get around DADT-a law passed by Congress 11 years before DADT.
EDIT: Are all gay soldiers essential to national security? Have all the soldiers that have been stop lossed since 9/11 been essential to national security? I’m pretty sure that there have been plenty of non-linguists, etc who have been stop lossed. Heck, the poor soldier in Santiago v Rumsfeld, the case cited in the study that upheld the constitutionality of stop loss, was a fueler.
Earl Butz
Ah, the smug bellicosity of those who are soon going to lose everything that they worked for and then some. Enjoy the last days of DADT, because the next president-who will be a Republican-is going to sign off on something way worse. Probably a reversal of Lawrence v. Texas for starters.
And you fucking deserve it. The key is not “electing more and better Democrats”, it’s called “party unity”, idiots – and the majority of the party isn’t willing to vote to repeal DADT right now. Fucking deal with it, and learn what “party unity” really means. Republicans win even though they’re a 2-1 minority in this country because of it. How long have they been waiting for their repeal of Roe v. Wade?
They still vote and they still give. Figure it out, dumbfucks.
cleek
@Linda Featheringill:
i’m not sure you understood what i wrote.
currently:
the law says “people known to be gay must be discharged”.
DADT say “OK, so let’s just not find out who’s gay”.
“repealing DADT” leaves us with the law which says gays must be discharged. that would be worse (IMO).
Gromit
@celticdragonchick:
This is good reason to be encouraged, but the dark cloud to this silver lining is that a sizable chunk of that 75% are going to vote on other issues like taxes or immigration or stupid personality stuff long before they are going to vote on DADT. And then there’s the underrepresentation of gay-friendly states in the Senate.
Midnight Marauder
@August J. Pollak:
This phrasing, especially when we are discussing procedural differences to the same end goal, is beyond fucking infuriating.
Essentially, you are creating a dichotomy where pushing for a full-on repeal of DADT (since it’s a fucking law passed by Congress and that’s how you eliminate laws you don’t want anymore) is somehow NOT the right thing. Where fighting to have a horrid policy scrapped in the same arena where it was created (Congress), via the same legislation it was initially passed in (defense bill) is somehow detrimental to the overall cause of improving the quality of life for LGBT individuals in this country. And, I’m sorry, but that is outright bullshit. You don’t get to co-opt one preferred strategy as the Noble Right Thing To Do; it’s just another method that has its strengths and flaws like going for a legitimate repeal.
But you don’t get to pretend like one has a greater moral superiority than the other. You don’t get to pretend like the scope of challenges with one route are irrelevant, while saying the other is The Only Real Way Forward.
Joe Beese
@celticdragonchick:
If the teacher gives you an unacceptable grade, knee him in the balls.
eemom
@John Cole:
Also too you suffer from a blind obedience to authority figures cuz of being an ex-republican. And you hate women. Plus you’ve got some weird thing about typos. Yer building quite a resume over there, dude.
But look on the bright side — at least you’re not a “bottom feeder” yet.
Marc
@August J. Pollak:
Basically, we have a clearly written and immoral law. It’s a terrible idea to have the president sign an order saying that a law doesn’t count.
That’s a damn important principle to hold to, even if the particular law is awful.
thefncrow
@Linda Featheringill: That bill is informally referred to as “ending DADT”, but it’s just a turn of phrase. “DADT” has come to refer to the policy of excluding gays from the military, when in fact that’s not what it is. “DADT” is the executive policy not to actively pursue information regarding the UCMJ rules that forbid homosexuals from serving in the military.
When you’re talking about the correct terminology, you’re right, Obama could wipe DADT out with a single EO. It’s just that the result of wiping out DADT would be “We’re going to ask, you’re going to have to tell us a lie”. The policy of excluding homosexuals from the military was enacted by Congress, and as such, only Congress can end it.
The best Obama could do on that front is what is being discussed here, to essentially issue an EO that would prohibit the enforcement of the exclusion of homosexuals. This would lead to several bad conclusions.
Congress would now see the exclusion of gays from the military as a settled issue, and any urgency which existed to fix the law would evaporate. I mean, why waste political capital on fixing something that’s not broken, even if the reason it’s not broken is because someone made a patchwork fix out of duct tape?
If challenged in court on this issue, the Obama administration would lose, because it’s not within the executive’s power to repeal properly enacted legislation.
And, again, if a Republican were to come to power, the EO would be rescinded in a heartbeat and the gay purges would begin.
Such an EO might stop the slow and steady loss of homosexual members of the military for now, but at the cost of turning homosexual service members into a political football. Can you imagine the backlash Obama would get if he issued this EO, and in 2014, the courts were to rule the EO unconstitutional, requiring the Obama administration to enforce the exclusion of gays required by Congress? It’d be bad enough if a Republican president reinstated investigations of gay service members, but what if the courts actually obligated Obama to follow the law and remove homosexuals from the military? I mean, a big deal would be made about how the discrimination is ending and service members who are gay should feel free to come out when the EO was issued, and now, the same person who told you everything was OK is now the person prosecuting a case to exclude you.
Sly
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Stop Loss itself isn’t illegal so long as it does not lengthen a servicemembers term beyond the contractually-defined service period.
But discharges under DADT are explicitly carved out of the Stop Loss statute. The order has exceptions, and homosexuality is one of them.
Dave C
@Earl Butz:
Wrong. The majority of Democrats in both Houses already voted to repeal DADT. It’s the Senate Republicans that stopped them passing the repeal.
Martin
I worked pretty hard on the No on 8 campaign, put a lot of money and time into it, but Joe Beese almost makes me want to see DADT continued. I hate political issue blackmail.
If Obama had signed a EO, Beese would still be bitching that it was just a temporary measure until President Palin reverses it in 2012, and then he’d be criticizing Obama for congratulating the WNBA champions instead of repealing DOMA. He’ll never be happy. Never. He just wants to bitch about Obama and is using whatever convenient issue he finds.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Sly:
How is there an exception carved out? Stop loss was codified well before DADT.
themann1086
@Marc: Been lurking, but this gets to the heart of it. “But Bush-” yeah I know what Bush did, I was against it! “But Obama-” YES, I know he’s abusing executive power and privilege in other arenas, I’m opposed to that, too, and that doesn’t mean I think we should just throw up our hands and say “to hell with legislation”.
The “repeal DADT via EO” crowd is right that the policy is immoral and awful and should be done away with ASAP, but giving an already super-powerful executive branch even more discretionary power is a bad idea, and it sets a bad precedent. The Unitary Executive is flawed and wrong all the time; it doesn’t magically become right just because it could be used for good.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Amanda in the South Bay:
I already discussed this way back near the beginning of the thread. In short, no. For starters, no one has said anything at all about constitutionality; you created that on your own. More importantly, during the period where we were fighting two wars and the military wasn’t meeting recruitment goals, a plausible argument, at least, could be made that soldiers in a lot of specialties were essential to national security. (Note that stop-loss never applied to all specialties.)
That’s no longer true. There are no only a very few specialties where that can be said with a straight face. Therefore, there are very few specialties where it is legal to invoke the stop-loss power.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Earl Butz:
What is funny is that on just about every LGBT blog that I visit, I tend to come down on the side of those who say that DADT is near the bottom of the list of to do items, especially for trans people-stuff like employment discrimination and access to affordable healthcare for transitioning are much, much more important than a law that affects only a small number of cissexual queer people.
I guess I don’t like the implication that those of us who dare to criticize Obama and the Dems in general are somehow enabling a GOP takeover. What part of “I voted straight Democratic on my 2010 ballot that I’m going to mail today” don’t you understand? I refuse to STFU, but I’m doing everything I can to support everyone with a D next to their name this fall.
I don’t have the nice comfy upper middle class suburban lifestyle that allows me to do a shit load of volunteering, and I think the people who are sitting this one out don’t quite realise how fucked the country will be with Speaker Orange Face from Ohio trying to impeach Obama.
Besides, it in no way follows that a take over of Congress by the GOP implies a President Palin in 2012. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from economics, its that most predictions of the future are bunk.
Cat
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
There is a big difference to cutting handfuls of translators vs 10’s of thousands active service personnel. in the minds of most people.
The same can be said about the EO on foreign aide vs DADT. One is about what other people do in their own country and one is about what we do to our own people.
There is no real equivalency, except in how it fits the narrative that EOs are footbals that nobody cares about except a tiny fraction of the base.
Suck It Up!
No offense to liberal activists but you guys don’t have the best track record of getting shit done. You are often on the right side of issues but your strategy is lacking. Stop fighting for quick short cuts and let it be repealed permanently.
NobodySpecial
Simple point for those of you counseling ‘patience’.
You point out that Congress wouldn’t pass this with 59 Dems.
There’s no reasonable argument you can make that there will be more than 59 Dems by the end of Obama’s term.
Why, then, would they be wrong for pushing for an EO NOW, while they have maximum leverage, especially given that you’re arguing that Obama will never have a chance to get that legislation passed?
beergoggles
@Tractarian: Please explain how 6+ years of gays serving openly in the military would be disastrous to their human rights in the long term.
The possibility of being discharged 6+ years from now counts about as much as the US being wiped out by Palin pressing the wrong button or American Imperialism coming home to roost.
Even if 6+ years from now, if the stop-loss or court ruling were overturned, that would bring us back to how it is now. So it isn’t worse, it would be the same.
So essentially your argument to gays is: Give up pushing for this now because it might be overturned in the future and you will be no worse off than you are now.
With that kind of logic you should run for office as a Tea Party candidate.
Chrisd
If Obama had issued the EO back in early 2009, we would now have had close to two years’ worth of experience of gays finally serving without the witchhunt, two years for a minority of straight servicemen and the public to deal with their irrational hysteria and bigotry. Two years to calm everyone the fuck down about this colossal non-issue. Yeah, the lunatics on the right would be foaming at the mouth, but so what? The cat’s out of the bag; nobody in the services would give a shit anymore. Debate of the repeal of DADT would take place with the certain knowledge that the new status quo would not hurt anyone or anything.
Instead we have nothing now but the continuous fear of the unknown to deal with. Obama thinks letting our chickenshit legislature take first crack at this is the way to go, and you people contort yourselves that this is somehow part of some grand complex strategy rather than admit the obvious–he’d rather keep the stank off him.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Why the hell doesn’t ENDA get anywhere near the coverage of DADT and DOMA, even when it was actually a live bill?
Original Lee
@Roger Moore: This. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING more permanent in this country than a temporary solution to a problem. (Cf. The Eastern Shore of Maryland.)
Cat
@NobodySpecial:
Shorter anti-EO obot crowd:
Sure the HCR was only a first step and more progress needs to be done later, but it brings relief to poor people who need it now!
But you totally can’t do an EO to bring relief to poor gays who need it now because it has to been done the right way the first time or not at all!
daveNYC
Yeah, because it’s freaking Massachusetts. I think a better example of the level of backlash is Iowa. The legislature delayed any attempt to change the constitution, and fortunately the amendment process there is a difficult one. However the local nutters are looking to toss out some of the justices that ruled on the case.
Midnight Marauder
@Chrisd:
Actually, I’m pretty sure it is an concerted strategy by the Obama Administration, which reflects their approaches to passing the Affordable Care Act and financial regulation, in addition to a whole host of legislative issues. There are more than enough facts and examples to support the notion that President Obama is trying to get Congress back into the mode of actually doing their jobs as legislators after the institution essentially atrophied under Bush.
Moreover, your conclusion lacks any legitimacy when the person you are saying wants to “keep the stank off him” would, in fact, sign such legislation repealing DADT. And if you’re trying to keep the stank off of you in this day and age, granting first-class citizens’ rights to the gays certainly isn’t the best way to go about doing that.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@Cat: All I’m asking for is doing in a way that doesn’t involve actually breaking the law.
Zuzu's Petals
@aimai:
Maybe not, but it sure helped the GOP in 2004:
lol
Obama gets flack for paying too much attention to Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and now he’s getting flack for paying too *little* attention to them.
Chrisd
@Midnight Marauder:
I’m glad you noticed that Obama’s hands-off approach is congenital and not limited to this one issue.
And it’s worked so well! A grateful nation will be rushing to the polls next month in a symbolic referendum for his novel take on presidential leadership!
Paula
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Yeah, but that was, like SIX WHOLE YEARS AGO. How can we be expected to remember anything before 2004??
Lurked
@daveNYC:
Don’t forget Maine, which IIRC also voted by referendum to overturn a law permitting gay marriage. There is still a lot of anti-gay sentiment in the country despite considerable progress in recent years. DADT seems to be less controversial with the public than is marriage, but it’s still not necessarily the case that an EO would make it “impossible” for a Republican administration to rescind it because when it comes to social issues they do not care about general public opinion, just about the opinion of their base.
hopeful
@ruemara:
It is the Obama administration who is appealling. It makes no sense why they would, unless they like DADT. Explain to me exactly how a conservative could appeal? Only the administration can. The conservatives would have no standing to sue under a DADT repeal.
General JAFO Willibro
@celticdragonchick: Good for you. Don’t let them repeat that stupid set of lies. Talk about smug bullshit driving people insane: The BJ For Obama Softball Team could out-smug Margaret Fucking Dumont.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
Partly it has to do with including trans people, i.e. including gender identity as well as sexual orientation. The major gay rights groups, like HRC and their ilk, don’t want that because they think it’d slow down or hamper its passing by Congress. Just look at what happened in late 2007, when Barney Frank pushed through a stripped down ENDA that didn’t include trans people. HRC and those fuckers cheered, and so did Sullivan, for that matter. There’s a substantial segment of cissexual (i.e. non trans) queer people who don’t think that there should be such a thing as LGBT rights, that trans people don’t belong under that umbrella (which completely ignores the history of the LGBT rights movement).
It sorta boggles me about DADT-it doesn’t impact trans people, and impacts far, far fewer queers than passing ENDA would help. And its not as if military service is that popular among the queer set. The wars have undoubtedly helped out as well-it doesn’t take a computer science degree to Google stories about highly trained personnel getting discharged in wartime.
I mean, I get pretty animated about this here, not so much because of the policy per se, but because I tend to come down on the side of those who do generously criticize the Dem establishment, but I draw the line at “punishing” the Dems and rewarding the GOP.
I think also its an attempt by gay rights groups and individuals to co-opt a bit of patriotism and supporting the military and trying to appear mainstream, but that’s just one little bloggers opinion.
All in all, I’d much rather have had all the political capital spent on DADT expended on ENDA because it actually helps far more people out than DADT ever would.
MikeMc
Can the President overturn any law with an executive order? Am I the only one who finds that a bit disquieting?
Midnight Marauder
@Chrisd:
Yeah, it has worked pretty well. I, for one, am more than pleased to have the Affordable Care Act laying the foundation for universal health care, financial regulation, student loan reform, credit card reform, investments in green energy, the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act, and most importantly, a president who understands that it’s Congress’ job to legislate and that the process of doing so is often messy, ugly, and completely vexing.
And all asinine snark aside, this election is in no way a referendum on President Obama and his leadership. It’s a consortium of races being decided by a host of issues that have various resonance in different locales and regions. And that grateful nation you speak of is so grossly uninformed about what’s happened over the past two years that most of them don’t even realize their taxes have been cut and are currently residing at historic lows.
So, yeah, fuck them and their misguided “gratitude.”
AxelFoley
@Nick:
Yup. And some of these same folks who hate Obama love them some Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton–who did what, boys and girls?– who signed DADT into law.
Amanda in the South Bay
@MikeMc:
Well, the point being that the Pres, if he did overturn DADT by EO, would be using a law passed by congress as his basis for doing so-i.e. the stop loss law. So its not as if its just blind executive power of the John Yoo variety being floated about.
I’d probably (grudgingly) come down on the side of those who say it’d be a bad thing, if only cause its a lawyerly, weasel-ish way out of it, and it there’s one thing I hated about the military, it was the ability of people of people to follow the letter of the law, but not give too shits about the spirit of it.
Amanda in the South Bay
@AxelFoley:
Um…I don’t. I actually think Clinton was an overrated, reckless jack ass.
hopeful
@Midnight Marauder:
How exactly does a law that makes it illegal for states to setup a single payer system get us closer to universal healthcare? I am really curious.
Midnight Marauder
@celticdragonchick:
@General JAFO Willibro:
For the record, let’s just lay out what Susan Collins said about her conversation with Joe Biden and her feelings on the issue of DADT:
And somehow, Joe Biden is the asshole in all of this? LOLWUT?!
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Well, DUH, but damned if internet hordes would call this argument a form of bigotry in a heartbeat.
I get the arguments over a division between cis- and transsexual rights. But how much of this is reflected in the general editorial voice of, say, Pam’s House Blend or AmericaBlog? I mean, they really really fucking love their DADT/DOMA repeal campaign and had relatively spotty coverage of ENDA. I get why Sullivan and HRC would “cheer” for a stripped down ENDA, but why does the issue seem in general to be like a red-headed stepchild of gay rights issues even among the progressive set online?
Chrisd
@Midnight Marauder:
“fuck them and their misguided ‘gratitude'”?
How exactly is that “asinine snark aside”, or are you being serious?
And if you are serious, eat shit.
Steve
@hopeful: Unless I’m mistaken, there’s no appeal yet. The court declared DADT unconstitutional, but they are still arguing over the scope of the injunction that the court is going to enter. It might be a nationwide injunction, or it might apply only in that judicial circuit. It might apply to everyone or it might apply only to the plaintiffs who sued in that particular case. The court hasn’t decided yet.
If the court enters a nationwide injunction (I don’t think this will happen, but I’m not really sure), I kinda sorta think the administration has to appeal whether they like it or not, but I think it would be reasonable for them to announce that they’re suspending DADT until the appeal is decided – given that a review is underway already. So I agree with your basic sentiment.
CalD
Who cares about long term repercussions. I WANT A PONY, RIGHT NOW DAMNIT!
Midnight Marauder
@hopeful:
Serious question: What the fuck are you talking about?
Again, what the fuck are you talking about?
Tsulagi
Exactly.
But it wouldn’t even need to be an EO attempting to repeal DADT. More than a few ways it could be done.
One way could take the direct approach ordering the SecDef to suspend DADT separations for national security reasons. That while we’re engaged in two wars and the never ending GWOT we need every swinging dick.
At the very least an EO could simply follow the time honored and practiced prerogative by military commanders of adding to regulations and policies, but not taking away from them. Kinda like how CA has added environmental/emission restrictions greater than those mandated by federal law. CA doesn’t attempt to repeal or take away anything from federal law, they add to it. Obama could add to the evidentiary requirements for an involuntary DADT discharge so high as to nullify them.
Midnight Marauder
@Chrisd:
The “asinine snark aside” comment was in reference to your superfluous “It’s worked so well! A grateful nation!” nonsense. You attempted to maintain that the current Democratic worries about voter turnout are solely in relation to the performance of the Obama Administration. I am pointing out that the “grateful nation” you are proclaiming doesn’t have their facts straight about a whole host of issues. I am pointing out that a sickening number of citizens in this “grateful nation” who complain regularly about how the government just takes and takes from them, are completely oblivious to the fact that federal income tax levels are at historic lows.
So, not facetiously, what did you mean by “grateful nation”?
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
Inertia, perhaps? And back in late 2008 I think many people saw it as low hanging fruit by framing the issue purely in terms of national security vis a vis all of those discharged linguists and people who got awarded various medals overseas and whatnot. Besides, decorated gay soldiers make better media coverage than poor trans folk.
hopeful
@Midnight Marauder:
What are you talking about? Wyden was the one that put in the Affordable care Act that states couldn’t start a single payer system. He only introduced Empowering States to be Innovative after he got so much crap in his state for fighting against single payer and the public option.
Wyden was being completely dishonest. The waiver can’t be granted until 2017 at the earliest. And they made it so difficult to get a waiver or set up a system that is acceptable it will be nearly impossible to get a waiver by 2017. So maybe you should know what you are talking about before you spout off.
hopeful
@Midnight Marauder:
What are you talking about? Wyden was the one that put in the Affordable care Act that states couldn’t start a single payer system. He only introduced Empowering States to be Innovative after he got so much crap in his state for fighting against single payer and the public option.
Wyden was being completely dishonest. The waiver can’t be granted until 2017 at the earliest. And they made it so difficult to get a waiver or set up a system that is acceptable it will be nearly impossible to get a waiver by 2017. So maybe you should know what you are talking about before you spout off.
Cat
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
Man, if they can find legal grounds to order executions of American citizens away from battlefields I think they can find some loophole to allow Gays to serve in the military.
If you are anti-loop hole/spirit of the law kinda guy more power to you, but there is no middle ground. You either use them or you don’t.
This administration is down with them and to say that subverting DADT is a bridge to far is ludicrous.
nancydarling
This thread is causing me to despair. We all want the same thing, yet we are so ugly to each other. If people on the same side of an issue can’t have a civil discussion, then what hope is there for any civil discussion with some one who disagrees. Stop it!
As John McKay (I think) famously said when USC was losing badly to Notre Dame at half time, “Gentlemen, if you go out and block and tackle, Mr. Davis will carry the ball, and we’ll go on from there”. Our president never said he could do it by himself. Our job is to block and tackle so Obama can carry the ball.
Now, I am going to go and cut you all some slack—some for President Obama, too.
hopeful
@Steve:
AP:
“Attorneys for the Obama administration objected Thursday to a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a California federal judge that would halt the military’s ban on openly gay troops.
Calling the possible move “untenable,” Department of Justice attorneys filed their objections in U.S. District Court in Riverside.
They said Judge Virginia Phillips, who declared the policy unconstitutional earlier this month, would be overstepping her bounds if she tried to stop it in its tracks.
Instead, she should limit any injunction to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit to stop enforcement of the ban, the lawyers said.
The case has put the White House in the uncomfortable position of defending a policy President Obama has said he wants repealed.”
There is no need for him to appeal. Nobody ever has to appeal. Is all he has to do is accept the judgement. Let the republicans fight it in court next time if they want, but they would have to start all over because once you have settled a current case you can’t then appeal it.
cleek
@MikeMc:
no, he can’t.
he can only direct agencies in the Executive branch on how to meet the requirements of the laws Congress passes.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Yep. A person who would suggest giving a group civil rights, for a little bit, is a person who could give a shit about anyone but the person they see in the mirror. Disgusting.
Sly
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Stop Loss was codified before DADT, but not the before ban on “homosexual conduct.” As you probably know, DADT was implemented to halt active investigations of said conduct, but largely failed. The prohibition on homosexuality precedes DADT, as does the other exemptions to Stop Loss.
These exemptions include soldiers eligible for disability, meet specific hardship criteria, failed performance assessments, were dishonorably discharged, or would be compelled to serve while pregnant.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I just read part of the wikipedia page on DADT. If you repeal DADT, then, according to info on that page, you would be allowing members to be discharged whether or not they “displayed” their gayness. Actual law states that members cannot be gay and serve. This could not be repealed via an EO. A president that chooses to ignore it would, theoretically, expose himself to impeachment since he would not be following the law, and even if he weren’t, the next president could just claim to follow the law.
The only way I see that this gets fixed is to repeal the law, which requires either Congress or the Supreme Court, though the Supreme Court could do it by just affirming this lower court decision.
ruemara
@hopeful:
Because that is the role of the DOJ. I’m not sure what your issue is. The DOJ is there to enforce the law. A challenge to the law, particularly one like this, where a minority is suing for it’s rights, will be fought all the way to the top, so that a final, ineffable fucking ruling can happen.
Edit:
I see, based on your further commentary, that you’re not aware of a few things. 1. the scope of the ruling is what is being asked for a stay, there has been no repeal as of yet.
2. The Obama administration is not permanent. An open target like this would not stay unshot down for long.
3. Where was everyone lobbying when Gilibrand tried to get a repeal to the floor?
Joe Beese
@Cat:
The difference being that Obama doesn’t want gays in the military.
Because he’s a bigot.
Steve
@hopeful: Before I responded to you I went and read the court papers the administration filed objecting to the scope of the injunction. That’s why I say I think it probably won’t be a nationwide injunction. The judge will have to decide.
Assuming it’s not a nationwide injunction, even if they decided not to appeal, DADT would still be in force for most of the country. They couldn’t really justify announcing a nationwide suspension based upon an injunction that only applies in California.
Corner Stone
Man, thank God that aimai is the one who posted that. If some other hapless commenter had been making the case regarding what equality does vis a vis normalization Cole might have choked to death screaming “Firebagger!” at them.
Seriously. WTF do you think a lot of us have been arguing this whole fucking time? Did you think it was about a pony?
Scott P.
They are not wrong. Push away. Write letters to the White House. Just don’t call Obama a homophobic sell-out while you’re doing it. It’s counterproductive, and wrong.
Sly
@Tsulagi:
You make that claim as if you know that SecDef has that authority. Do you know that for sure?
To a large extent, that’s already been done. The requirements for involuntary discharges are now much higher, and have been so for over six months.
FlipYrWhig
Seems to me that if you’re one vote short of overturning a policy in the soundest way possible, by legislation, it might not be a great idea to use an executive order to overturn it in some other way that reduces the likelihood of doing it the legislative way. The Defense Authorization Bill isn’t going to stay filibustered forever, right? This is a moment in which the supporters of DADT repeal have a lot of advantages: the public backs their position, the legislation is tied to an indispensable bill, and they’re one vote shy of passage. In that case, why not throw your energy into railing at Susan Collins? Yes, the executive order option is appealing, but they’re ONE VOTE short of a much better option, and that’s not going away. Why is this the moment to start flailing around?
Amanda in the South Bay
@Sly:
Yeah, but that’s only a very temporary, half measure till the next President. Obviously something more permanent is needed.
Midnight Marauder
@hopeful:
Right. Wyden was being so dishonest about the wavier that he’s trying to pass legislation to move the start date up to 2014:
There are two main issues I object to in your argument. The first is your insistence on single payer somehow being involved. Personally, I am of the mind that single payer is not the end-all, be-all of health care and that there are more than enough ways to bring affordable coverage to people without having to pursue that path if it proves to be too politically difficult. That’s the beauty of Wyden’s amendment; it gives states an extraordinary amount amount of freedom and creativity to construct a system that works best for them.
The second is the idea that the waivers are going to be excessively hard to obtain. I haven’t read anything indicating that to be the case, and from what I’ve gathered, it would appear the primary obstacle to overcome is whether or not you have a Republican governor in your state who will be willing to sign off on a program that would opt-out of the national program, in exchange for creating an equivalent or better program in their home state.
ruemara
@FlipYrWhig:
Because anger at the President is easier and you can find a large group of similar minded folks to rail with.
MBunge
@hopeful: There is no need for him to appeal. Nobody ever has to appeal.
I’m no law talkin’ guy, but I’m pretty sure that every Adminstration always appeals rulings that go against the government, especially ones that limit executive authority.
Mike
Josh James
I thought Truman integrated the military via an EO, or am I wrong about that?
Amanda in the South Bay
@Josh James:
I think so too, but the problem is there was no law passed by Congress mandating segregation in the armed forces.
Amanda in the South Bay
Of course you could take another route-pass ENDA, and apply it to the military.
The problem with that is that the military always likes to find exceptions to pesky laws that it doesn’t want to follow.
Paula
California had gay marriage for more than a year before religious twits with outside money overturned it again.
Also, I reiterate Zuzu’s point about how gay marriage in Mass. may have gone OK in Mass., but it was exploited in other parts of the country by Rove et al as part of a “values voter” backlash that was heavily touted by the MSM as a crucial part of Bush’s re-election and would probably be again given the prominence of anti-gay views among Tea Party candidates.
Jackie
I am so tired of my civil rights being delayed because people think its not good politics to do it right now. And, really, the idea that one president doesn’t do the right thing because the next president might override it and do a bad thing. Really? This is what we want to base governance on?
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
@Josh James:
It took several years (and 1 Korean War) for that to come into effect, particularly since the military was damned reluctant to actually implement it.
thefncrow
@Josh James: Yes, Truman integrated the military via an EO. The difference is that Congress had not mandated via legislation that the military be a segregated institution. That left the decision in the hands of the executive, who was free to set the policy for a segregated or integrated military as they pleased.
This is not the case with homosexuals in the military. Congress has mandated that the military exclude homosexuals from service as unfit, and any repeal of that decision must come from Congress. Congress mandated the exclusion of homosexuals because they were afraid that Clinton was about to do what Truman had done, allowing homosexuals to serve by issuing an EO overriding the previous discriminatory executive policy. Clinton’s response to that was the creation of DADT, in order to attempt to mitigate the effects of the Congressionally-mandated exclusion of gays in the military.
celticdragonchick
@MBunge:
Once.
It got the point across. He never made the comment again.
Sly
@thefncrow:
Everything you said, plus its worth nothing that while Truman issued EO 9981 in July of 1948, segregation didn’t completely end in military units until 1954. Further, it wasn’t until 1963 that the military declared segregated establishments off-base to be off-limits for military personnel, and that policy too took a number of years to fully implement.
mapaghimagsik
I’m in the “rights are not ponies” camp. I’d be furious, thogh emotion doen’t always make good strategy.
I am sick of “strategy” being “do what I do”.
I think my next stratgy is when the DNCC or whoever calls, I’ll say “here’s $20. When you fix senate rules to remove the silent hold, I’ll make it $400. When you make the fillibuster so you actually have to stand there, I’ll make it $600. I’ll make it $800 when you fix citizen’s united so doners are disclosed.”
I’ll call it pay as you go government. I don’t care about DADT because while I loathe discrimination, gay marriage is a bigger prize to me than being allowed to bomb wedding parties.
Map +e
celticdragonchick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
great point…but if we are so hapless that we cannot get a bill passed that is supported by 75% of the population, ENDA has no chance at all.
geg6
@hopeful:
One U. S. District Court judge’s opinion does not an unconstitutional law make. This will go to SCOTUS before it’s actually declared unconstitutional. And a court ruling is only the second best way to get to where you want to go, especially considering the make-up of the current Court. A legislative repeal is and always will be the best solution all the way around.
Jeebus. I guess they really don’t teach civics any more.
celticdragonchick
@Joe Beese:
The class is optical mineralogy, and my teacher’s name is Marlene. I have an A in the class.
Guilford College is extremely welcoming to GLBT students and one of the most progressive/liberal schools in the southeast United States.
I would utterly shocked to hear blatant homophobic/transphobic or mysogynisic comments from anybody on this campus.
Amanda in the South Bay
@geg6:
So by that reasoning SCOTUS shouldn’t have made all of their big civil rights decisions in the 50s and 60s and left those up to the federal and state legislatures? I don’t think its obvious that for screwed over minorities, resorting to the courts is a second choice. It really depends on your judicial philosophy.
Paula
@celticdragonchick:
Not to be an ass, but you’re saying that you’re in favor of putting legislation that would affect more people on the back burner in favor of legislation that would affect a select few because of … political expediency?
Incidentally, I have the exact opposite logic. ENDA is about employment. People have a right to earn their living and that’s something, unlike military service, that most people can probably understand on very direct terms regardless of homophobia.
ruemara
@geg6:
Lord, yes. I would pay more in taxes if we had a 9 am to 4pm school day with mandatory arts, logic and civics courses. I would also be in Shangri-la, but that’s another matter.
Sly
@mapaghimagsik:
That’s not the case.
The point of this entire discussion is that we are dealing with a matter of law that has been enacted by Congress and must be enforced by the President, via a military bureaucracy that has often has its own agenda. Things of this nature are complicated, and there is no magic bullet solution that is quick and painless as much as EVERYONE HERE wishes that there is.
Quick and painless are contradictory terms with this type of thing. Policies like EO and Stop Loss are quick, but would be subject to multiple legal challenges and likely would not hold up under judicial scrutiny (at least not for very long… especially if the presiding judge gets injunction-happy). Getting Congress to repeal it would not have those burdens, but it takes longer.
No one is asking anyone to be patient and do nothing. We merely request that if you feel like engaging in political activism, it might be wiser to use it against the people who are standing in the way of reform (Republicans).
Scott P.
From an ideological point of view, the Obama administration would argue, and has argued, that it is following the law in all respects.
From a practical point of view, of course there’s a middle ground. That middle ground is occupied by, oh, every government in human history.
Even dictators find their actions constrained by legal tradition and precedent. Even the most committed constitutionalists tread in gray areas where there is dispute over the interpretation and force of the law.
It’s not like proving a double negative. If Obama breaks one law, that doesn’t give him magical powers to break every law.
geg6
@hopeful:
Can you not fucking read? It has been explained about a dozen times in this thread that, without a law that explicitly bans discrimination against gays in the military, a judgment in favor of stopping DADT will make the default the old law. Which was Definitely Ask, You Are Required to Tell, and We Will Throw the Book At You.
Cacti
I must have been asleep when the POTUS was given monarchial powers where he could unilaterally suspend acts of Congress with the stroke of a pen.
celticdragonchick
@Paula:
Ouch. Yeah, I hate being a cynic, but I would like to go for what is the most achievable thing first. Amanada is quite correct when she says that ENDA would have far more impact on the GLBT community, but I counter that it is also out of reach for now. We should be able to pass a bill that 75% of the population wants, and we should be able to publically shame a few retrograde senators and call them out on National Security grounds if they oppose it.
No political capital has been spent in this direction (it being an election year and all) and Reid preferred to play games with the bill instead of passing it. He says he will introduce it again in the lame duck session and allow the normal amendment process to occur, but there will be two or three new senators who will have taken seats automatically after the November election because of special circumstances… and I see little hope that the bill will pass in that climate or that he will even introduce it as he said. I would be delighted to be wrong on this, because if it doesn’t pass now, it will not come again for 15 years.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yeah, and FWIW, Obama laid out his judicial philosophy in a series of interviews in 2001 — in which he was skeptical of the amount of success was attained using the courts for civil rights amendments.
He comes down pretty heavily on the side of the legislative rather than judicial.
RealPlayer doesn’t work for me, but if you have it, you can listen to the Jan 18, 2001 round table discussion on Chicago Public Radio here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0ymHY4MWFQYJ:www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp+obama+chicago+public+radio+2001&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
or here:
http://blogs.vocalo.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912
Persia
@Scott P.: Which isn’t that far away from what we have now.
celticdragonchick
@geg6:
Actually, the judge was ruling that throwing gays out the military under any law is unconstitutional and is depriving the military of valuable trained persons during a time of war.
If the ruling stands (which is possible considering the way the judge framed it), DADT and any previous similar laws would get thrown out. I would not bet that Kennedy and Roberts would side with the (Sc)alito faction on this.
Paula
@celticdragonchick:
Look, you seem well-intentioned and young and still in school, so I apologize if I’m sounding like I’m attacking you — but you do realize the fundamental hypocrisy between what you’re accusing people of on this thread and what you just typed in re ENDA vs DADT.
Which is to say, disregarding a the rights of a group of people in favor of political expediency?
hopeful
Where are you all getting this that the government has to appeal? That is not true it has never been true and it never will be true. So please can you all stop arguing that Obama “has to appeal” It is just flat out incorrect. By not appealing is all your doing is recognizing the courts decision. Granted other lawsuits down the road won’t have the authority of a higher court ruling to use, but who cares if the Obama administration accepts the ruling. Let some other administration down the road worry about a new case.
This from the AP:
– Sun Oct 10, 6:44 pm ET
NEW YORK (AFP) – The US government on Sunday declined to appeal a New York judge’s ruling that barred the star prosecution witness from testifying in the first civilian trial of an ex-Guantanamo inmate.
celticdragonchick
@Paula:
My African American History text and Professor had different takes on that.
An awful lot of progress (from inter racial marriage to school equality) had to be done in courts.
Persia
@Paula: Pam’s House Blend is the one that almost melted down because some asshole thought ‘cis’ was an insult.
joe from Lowell
An executive order is second-best. Eyes on the prize, people – a complete, total, irreversible repeal is the gold standard, and a for-now repeal by executive order is a distant, distant second-best.
I believe Joe Biden when he says that holding off on an executive order was the price for getting the votes for a legislative repeal. As long as that option is still in play – meaning, unless the language which has already been put into this year’s Defense Authorization Act gets stripped out and the bill passed without it – then Obama should hold off on the EO.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
Fortunately I don’t take my constitutional law pointers from Professor Obama.
I don’t mean to be snarky or anything like that, his views are what they are (and are I think indicative of the rightward shift of the legal academy) but are hardly in the mainstream of progressive American legal thought (which of course as an avowed centrist he is not).
Cacti
@hopeful:
Here’s the problem with that particular logic.
The decision of a U.S. District Court is binding within the District and nowhere else. A decision from a District Court on a matter of national policy isn’t remotely close to a “final say” on the issue.
celticdragonchick
@Paula:
Meh. I’m 42 and going back to school after a nasty on the job injury. I do hope I’m well intentioned in any event.
I’m not sure I really see the hypocrisy you point out here, so I will just have to say that it is unintentional if I have done so. I tend to be a believer in realpolitik and that brand of political philosophy is readily open to charges of cynicism, expediency and hypocrisy.
Larv
I’ve only skimmed the last 50 comments, so maybe somebody else has raised this point. Part of the problem with using an EO to allow gays in the military is that it would really, really piss off the military. Maybe not the rank and file, but the senior officer and NCO classes would freak out. Does nobody remember Clinton’s efforts to allow gays to serve? A big part of the problem is that the career military types don’t like Democratic presidents telling them how to run the military. An EO plays right into this fear. Normally this would be unfortunate but acceptable, but given that Obama needs the military to at least partially buy in on withdrawal from Iraq/Afgh, and probably on a substantial budget cut, he really can’t afford to piss them off too much if he wants to get anything done. It sucks, but given the extent to which voters and politicians venerate the military, them’s the breaks.
Add to this the concerns that an EO would just kick the can down the road a few years without actually changing anything, and Obama’s desire to do this finally and legislatively begins to make a bit more sense.
Tsulagi
@Sly:
Under DADT the SecDef is charged with implementation and enforcement of that legislation.
See, a prime example of a military commander, in this case Gates a civilian, adding to the regulations to achieve a desired end. As president and CIC, Obama could add to that in an EO to damn near any extent he wished. Maybe even to the extent that someone who has served for 19 years, say like LTC Fehrenbach, wouldn’t have needed to seek an injunction trying to block his involuntary DADT discharge two months ago.
hopeful
@geg6:
You do realize that it doesn’t have to go to the supreme court before the government considers it unconstitutional? Don’t you? Please tell me you understand this? Is all the governement has to do is accept a lower courts decision. There is nothing in the law that says they have to appeal. If you do not understand this basic principle there is no need to continue this discussion.
Paula
@celticdragonchick:
It’s a long standing debate among legal and civil right scholars which still stands regardless, mostly because people argue about what the nature of that “success” actually was. You might trust your professors more than Obama, but Obama is not pulling that opinion out of his ass.
For example, several years ago mandatory school integration came up for questioning in a number of public schools who didn’t want “low performing” students lowering their rank. Not to mention the perennial use of the commerce clause in defending discrimination across state borders.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Larv:
The military has shifted quite far to the right since the 80s, and regardless of whether or not DADT is repealed by EO, SCOTUS or Congress, right wing douchebag officers and NCOs will complain that its the end of the world, oh noes, blah blah blah. If people in the military don’t like to follow orders, they can get the fuck out and look for a job where they can express their inner wingnut.
joe from Lowell
@hopeful: The example you gave is a ruling on a question of procedure in a trial, quite a different matter from a court declaring a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. The government has a presumptive duty to appeal such decisions.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Again, he’s not pulling that opinion out of his ass.
hopeful
@Cacti:
Nobody is arguing that logic but why does this administration have to appeal? Please don’t use the excuse that they really want to loose in the Supreme Court becasue I would refer you to indefinite detention. If this administration accepts the fact that DADT is unconstitutional then a new administration that implemented again could be sued. They would then loose in district court and if they lost they would have to appeal it.
Cat
@Joe Beese:
I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case. You can put your own needs above someone elses and not be a bigot. It does call into question your values, but I don’t think it makes you a bigot.
But you were trollin’ so whatever.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Then you shouldn’t freak out and attribute bigotry to political figures who are engaging in it.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
True, but for every centrist like him who, if he wasn’t in politics would be writing for TNR and other such august publications, there’s a bazillion liberal law profs who would disagree.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
We have only one more shot at it under this president (no matter whether he has another term or not) and that will be if and when Reid reintroduces the bill in the lame duck session. I have little confidence of anything happening, because we already know that Obama refuses to engage on the issue and that Reid…is Reid.
I think it will be another 15 years before we get a bite at this apple again, and maybe 20 before we get ENDA or DOMA through the legislature. I (and many other people) underestimated the sheer nihilism and rage of the far right…and the far right social conservatives have the GOP by the throat.
Maybe Reid didn’t have a shot at 60 votes last month (some say he did…but that he played parliamentary games and frittered that away). He has even less margin to play with after the election because two or three new senators will have been automatically seated.
The court is far and away our best option.
Amanda in the South Bay
@joe from Lowell:
I think that assuming that politicians themselves are engaging in realpolitik rather than letting their inner bigot run wild is itself an act of faith. But then again, I can’t delve deep into the psyche of our Mormon, pro life Senate leader from a heavily rural state.
Cat
@Larv:
What are they going to do? stay??? Will we find rangers in caves in 2020 asking who won the 2010-2011 super bowl?
MBunge
@celticdragonchick: Once.
It got the point across. He never made the comment again.
Was it some limp-wristed fellow college liberal or was it a drunk frat boy?
Mike
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
You may have me confused with somebody else.
I have not accused anybody on the left with bigotry (that I recall off hand in any event).
I accuse them of cowardice, mendacity, idiocy, and quite a few other things, but I do not believe that anti GLBT bigotry is really an over riding issue on the left.
At least I hope not.
celticdragonchick
@MBunge:
Drop it. The discussion has moved on.
hopeful
@joe from Lowell:
It is left of to the discretion of the prosecution. They can simply say they accept the decision and not appeal.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
So, like, this is a long standing divide in legal scholarship and history that has nothing to do with centrism or liberalism. It existed before Obama and TNR and will exist after they’re gone. I’m really sorry that you’ve apparently never heard of this before, but the divide has nothing to do with these inane categories because both sides of the argument take as a given the authority of the state and the validity of using existing legal protocol in enacting change.
I’m no legal scholar, so the level of ignorance for what appears to be a basic issue of progressive thought among people who proclaim themselves progressives is shocking to me.
MBunge
@celticdragonchick: Guilford College is extremely welcoming to GLBT students and one of the most progressive/liberal schools in the southeast United States.
I would utterly shocked to hear blatant homophobic/transphobic or mysogynisic comments from anybody on this campus.
Let me save you some pain and probably hospitalization. The culture of University Feminism where liberal dudes will back down if feminists get angry enough doesn’t extend out into the real world.
Mike
Bob Loblaw
In the words of Lisa Simpson, you’re all taking this impending electoral loss less than heroically.
It’s probably been quite the boon for repeat site traffic though. So there’s that.
joe from Lowell
@hopeful:
The phrase “government considers it unconstitutional” is too vague to be useful here. The Obama administration taking the position that something is unconstitutional doesn’t impose that position on any other branches of government, or any future administrations.
What you’re saying is that the current executive branch can have an opinion about its constitutionality and behave accordingly, but the courts (outside of a single federal district), Congress, and any future administrations can happily ignore that ruling and continue on their merry way.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
You mean a debate that manifests itself nowadays in the form of moderates arguing for judicial restraint and progressives arguing for courts to step in and protect minorities?
Geez, what did I do to piss you off-all I did was not give a shit about what Obama thinks of constitutional law?
Amanda in the South Bay
@MBunge:
Are you that condescending IRL?
celticdragonchick
@Paula:
You will find that the group of people doing a lot of the arguing also overlaps pretty heavily with the crowd that thinks that courts are populated by black robed tyrants who hate freedom and conspire to rob the people of their right to punish and persecute evil minorities through laws enacted by their representatives.
The gains made by court precedent (Brown V Board over turned Plessy V Fergeson, which was huge…and Loving V Virginia cannot be over-stated either since in many areas there were majorities in favor of banning inter racial marriage until the 1980’s) are real, and people woulf have literally waited decades in some cases for legislative gains to be made on the same front.
Sly
@Tsulagi:
That’s different from writing rules that countermand the directives within the statute. Show me in the text of the statute where I’m wrong, and I can give this line of argument a bit more credibility.
The date he filed his petition for an injunction is a red herring. The investigation that led to his discharge began in 2008, under different rules than what exists today.
AxelFoley
@thefncrow:
B-I-N-G-O.
Do it the right way. The way it can’t be simply overturned. Not an Executive Order, but by law.
Put it this way-as an African-American, I’d rather know my rights are guaranteed by law, than through the EO of some generous white President. Because what happens when not-so-generous white President comes along?
celticdragonchick
@MBunge:
Like I said, the discussion has moved on. I am not interested in your opinion on it.
celticdragonchick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
I am not going to pay any more attention to him. Feeding trolls is a waste of time.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
No. Again. It has nothing to do with Obama. In fact, there are a whole 2 other non-Obama scholars on that show that give equally nuanced views about the Civil Right movements relative effects. It has to do with the fact that you are apparently willing to dismiss a long-standing debate among progressive scholars that would actually be trenchant to the commentary going on around here minus the juicebagger/firebagger/obamabot/hamsherite/broderite nonsense.
The fact that you somehow tie this debate to that of “judicial restraint” in parlance of the MSM is pretty telling that you’ve never actually seen the amount of scholarship within progressive circles.
But then again, it’s no surprise that the American penchant towards anti-intellectualism hits both sides.
Google Scholar search:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&expIds=17259,24416,25907,26679,26997&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=judicial+legislative+strategies+and+civil+rights&cp=8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
MBunge
@celticdragonchick: Woman, I’m trying to save your life.
I’d like to think I could handle my temper, but if you and I were arguing and you put your hands on me because you didn’t like something I said, there’s at least a 10% chance I’d hit you back. I’m 6’7”, 255 and while most of that is fat, it’s still an awful lot of mass to come crashing down on top of your head. And there’s a lot of guys out there with a much higher than 10% chance of hitting back.
Stop thinking of physical violence in such a cavalier way.
Mike
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
I agree that this Defense Authorization Bill is the best chance. As I said, if the Senate strips the DADT repeal language and passes the bill, then we have to assume that Congress isn’t going to act, and settle for second-best.
No, we don’t know that. You’re making that up, because you get off on assuming bad faith on the part of the president whenever he doesn’t get you the right color pony. Since you’ve forgotten, it was Obama’s engagement that got the deal for the votes – the one that might come through when they take up the Defense bill again.
I don’t think you really understand what happened last month. Regardless, we’ll see what happens when the bill is brought back up, when we’re out of election season.
I’m not giving up on Congress. There were the votes on the Armed Services Committee to put in DADT language, there aren’t the votes to strip it out, and the underlying bill is a must-pass.
Options:
1. Congress
2. Courts
3. Executive Stop-loss order.
Only the first two are binding.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
The debate really isn’t among progressive scholars, its between progressive scholars and just about everyone else. I’m no lawyer either (and thank you so much for accusing me of anti-intellectualism!) but a couple of lawyers on a show to do not make up the entirety of the legal profession’s take on the role of judicial activism. Hell, just reading the liberal law blogosphere’s take on Prop 8 and all what happened there should make you realise that.
MBunge
@Amanda in the South Bay: I’m condescending to supposedly adult women who don’t understand that smacking a guy might produce a much more severe reaction than they expect.
Mike
joe from Lowell
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Don’t you think that depends on the politician? You’d probably have to look at each individual’s record. For instance, a pro-life Mormon who uses phrases like “negro dialect” probably doesn’t deserve much benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, a Hyde Park liberal who openly supported gay marriage as a state legislator, appointed hundreds of openly gay people to public office, has signed gay-friendly legislation and issued pro-gay executive orders, probably deserves a bit more.
Sentient Puddle
So uh…
TPM – Federal Judge Blocks Military From Enforcing DADT
If everyone were to calm down and stop laying eggs for a minute, the rational thing for us to do is to find one of us who knows something about constitutional law and explain the implications of this.
So can we be calm and rational and stop laying eggs for a minute?
Cat
@MBunge: Its possible she thinks standing up against some of hate speech out there is worth putting your life on the line for. Seriously, don’t you?
joe from Lowell
@hopeful: Correct, in a trial, the prosecutor (or defense attorney) who has a ruling go against them has extremely wide latitude in deciding whether to appeal.
The Justice Department, when faced with a challenge to the constitutionality of a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the President, in the absence of clearly-binding existing precedent proving that the law is unconstitutional, has much less discretion.
Chrisd
Unlike you, I don’t equate opposition with ignorance or worse. I think even U.S. citizens, as poorly informed as they may be on the particulars of policies, can sniff out administration priorities and fecklessness pretty reliably. And I do believe that midterms are referenda on the sitting president. Not entirely, but enough to make my statement less snark than you believe.
Amanda in the South Bay
@joe from Lowell:
True, its just that its hard to tell if politicians are merely being pragmatic, or if they are weaseling out by channeling their inner bigot. Unfortunately there’s a long, long chasm between Nancy Pelosi and a typical southern Republican; what Blue Dogs really think is beyond my ability to fathom.
celticdragonchick
@Cat:
Don’t bother with it. He doesn’t have all the particulars and I am not disposed to tell him everything. He can keep on his soap box and lecture me if he likes. It doesn’t concern me.
celticdragonchick
@Chrisd:
Yep.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yeah, the Prop 8 debacle is a good example of how concentrating activism in 1 branch of gov’t can neglect the effects of another branch. Thanks for proving my point.
Yeah, ignoring what a presidential candidate (at the time these interviews re-emerged as an issue on Oct. 2008) thinks about judicial vs. legislative strategies for social justice is real sign of intellectual engagement.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
“If you can’t get the whole hog, you take the ham sandwich.” – B. Obama
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
Um…no, Arnold actually vetoed (IIRC) at least two bills that would’ve enacted marriage equality. The court system, in this case, was a last resort.
You’re concern about judicial overreach is almost Sullivan esque in its concern trolliness.
celticdragonchick
@Paula:
Not caring about his opinion is not quite the same thing as being unaware of it.
celticdragonchick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yeah. That worked out well for somebody who actually gave lip service to favoring marriage equality, didn’t it?
At least he refused to contest the court ruling this last summer. That almost makes up for it.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
And your repetition of MSM-ian tropes of “judicial overreach” — which, once again has nothing to do with the debate over legislative vs. legal strategies in enacting social change — clues me in on how much your political philosophy is fed by the nightly news that many of you claim to be an alternative to.
I’m really sorry. No wonder progressivism is screwed.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick: Right. After all, what would a Senior Lecturer at one of the best law schools in the country have to say about Constitutional Law that could possibly go beyond your understanding?
Say, remind me again, what exactly did Professor Obama teach at the University of Chicago Law School? Oh, right – he taught Con Law.
Nobody can make you stop saying “I don’t care what that guy says about the constitution,” but you look a little silly doing it. This isn’t just some pol who’s spouting off about the courts without really understanding the issues, because he wants them to side with him on policy. This is somebody who was an expert, became recognized as an expert, within the field by its practitioners, on the strength of his actual legal chops, before he ever gained any status. So, just being flip about his opinion not being worth taking seriously doesn’t reflect well on you.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
You know, that doesn’t actually prove that bringing gay marriage to the courts was the best idea because … it was overturned by prop 8, right? I mean, that’s the fucking debate. They tried the legislative process, which DID work but was overturned because of the executive branch, to try the courts, which worked — only to be overturned by the legislative process that was able to work for them the first time around.
I mean, what is this line of argumentation that you’re functioning on? Merely presenting gay marriage to people, no matter how temporary and how unstable to their property and livelihoods, is some kind of victory?
Midnight Marauder
@Chrisd:
Except for the fact that I’m not equating opposition with ignorance either. But don’t come out of the gate sarcastically stating that a grateful nation will be going to the polls next month to use their vote as some kind of referendum on the Obama Administration. At the end of the day, almost all elections (except for presidential elections, obviously) are local affairs and the issues relevant to voters and their decision making process are ranked according to that. Furthermore, the chief point is that ignorance leads people to oppose legislation that they are actually in favor of, once they educate themselves as to the particulars contained within. The Affordable Care Act continues to provide the best case study on this.
I think you are much too generous in your assessment of the average American and what they can sniff out in this political climate. Again, a majority of Americans haven’t been able to sniff out the fact their federal taxes are at historic lows. A shitload of Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that they received a tax cut under the Obama administration. A great deal of Americans can’t sniff out the fact that it was President Bush who initiated TARP. And I’m pretty sure they couldn’t sniff out the fact the Obama Administration was not going to have “creating death panels” as one of their priorities with the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, the Senate race in Kentucky is not a referendum on President Obama. The race between Bill White and Rick Perry for the governorship in Texas is not a referendum on President Obama. The battle between Sharron Angle and Harry Reid is not a referendum on President Obama.
And so forth.
Juicebagger
Ohhhhh, I get so wet when all the Very Serious Juicebaggers insist on how right they are. It’s so compelling!
Paula
@joe from Lowell: I ain’t calling him an expert of any sort … just know the fucker before you vote, and even if you didn’t vote for him it would probably be helpful to have some of this as background.
Christ.
chopper
first:
try two, given how you dumbshit morons are acting.
second:
yes, knock it out with an EO and give dudes on the hill all the cover they need to shelve the fuckin law forever. well hey, the president has signed an EO, there’s no need for us to handle such a hot potato this session.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
That also might fall under appeal to authority.
Maybe he is right and maybe not…but I am not taking your word for it. I tend to think he isn’t right based on my own examination of the relevant history.
It isn’t what he says about the Constitution that is at issue. It is his (alleged) opinions on whether court cases or legislative processes were most instrumental in advancing civil rights.
The historians I know (I am an American History minor) tend to think that court victories were absolutely the most important mode of advancement at least until the mid 1960’s and still continued to be a major factor even after some legislative work had been done.
celticdragonchick
@Juicebagger:
I did not need that disturbing image.
:P
celticdragonchick
OT…..
Holy shit.
The severed head of the lead Mexican investigator on the case of the missing Texan man who was allegedly shot and killed on a border lake while jet skiing with his wife has been delivered in a suitcase to the Mexican military.
Jesus Christ.
MBunge
@celticdragonchick: Don’t bother with it. He doesn’t have all the particulars and I am not disposed to tell him everything. He can keep on his soap box and lecture me if he likes. It doesn’t concern me
Uh, making sure you understand that a great many folks will not tolerate you hitting them is not a lecture. It’s advice that shouldn’t need to be given to anyone much past their toddler years.
People who think they can indulge in physical violence in the midst of a verbal argument are living on borrowed time.
Mike
Mnemosyne
It always amazes me how any questioning of whether or not a particular strategy for ending DADT is a good strategy immediately turns into OMG WHY DO YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE!?!
Sorry, but even sainted gay people can tout really bad strategies. No one has to sit and listen in respectful silence if we think the way you want to do something is stupid and think you should do it in a better way that’s more likely to get the outcome you want.
Though I have to giggle that CDC is still 100 percent convinced that Susan Collins is an honest dealer who totally would have voted to end DADT if not for that ol’ meanie Harry Reid. No, really, there’s no way that Lucy would have pulled the football away this time when she’s only done it 100 times before! This time would have been different!
celticdragonchick
@Mnemosyne:
Just as I’m sure that Reid has it all under control this time if he brings it up again in the lame duck session.
Yep.
Reid would never be a dishonest and ineffectual hack. Nope. No sir. Dems everywhere love him and John Cole sings his praise every day. Best Senate leader we have had in a generation.
Mike Lamb
@hopeful: Great, they accept the lower court’s decision and can’t enforce DADT at, for example, Camp Pendleton in Oceanside. That court ruling has absolutely no impact on bases in Ft. Huachuca, San Antonio or anywhere else outside of that single judicial district. The ruling in CA was a good start, but the admin cannot use as the basis for not enforcing DADT nationwide.
Juicebagger
Hey, Mike, can you say “paternalism?”
Good, now FOADIAF!
nancydarling
MBunge, you sound like a knuckle dragging, misanthropic asshole. Why don’t you just drop it?
MBunge
@Cat: “Its possible she thinks standing up against some of hate speech out there is worth putting your life on the line for. Seriously, don’t you?”
When I asked her about using physical violence in response to unacceptable speech, she said…
“Once.
It got the point across. He never made the comment again.”
That doesn’t sound like she was standing up to some skinhead. It sounded like she smacked some liberal weenie from her own circle for saying something stupid. She’d best not think she can get away with that sort of stuff outside the boundaries of University Liberalism.
Mike
MBunge
@nancydarling: Uh, someone else proclaims their willingness to hit people for saying objectionable things…and I’M a knuckle-dragging, misanthropic asshole?
Mike
Mnemosyne
@celticdragonchick:
Nice goalpost change. I thought we were discussing the fact that Susan Collins lied and you believed her, because she was telling you a lie that you desperately want to believe i.e. that the failure of the DADT repeal was all Obama’s fault and had nothing to do with Collins being a cowardly liar who voted with the hard-line Republicans once again.
I’d think you’d be old enough to know that when the people who have voted against you 200 times before swear that this time they’re totally going to vote for you and then — whoops! — they don’t, that’s not because someone else forced them to not vote for you. It’s because they were lying to you.
joe from Lowell
@Paula:
Well, you probably should be. This is actually what he did for a living before going into politics – and did sufficiently well as to move up the ladder in his profession at a young age.
In addition to being a politician, Ron Paul is a obstetrician.
In addition to being a politician, my state rep is a defense attorney.
In addition to being a politician, Barack Obama is an honest-to-God, certified, professional scholar of Constitutional Law. One of the best law schools in the country found him sufficiently qualified that they had him teach this subject to people that they admitted to their law school.
Law is actually an academic field, that people study, where you can get questions wrong on tests and not know what you’re talking about. It’s fine for anyone to put forward a theory, but to insist that somebody who actually does this for a living, at a high level, must be wrong because they don’t buy your layman’s theory is incredibly arrogant. People don’t do this with archaeologists or particle physicists or sociologists. Don’t do it with legal scholars.
celticdragonchick
@Mnemosyne:
I am pointing out that Reid is just as much of the problem as Collins, which people here are curiously loathe to admit.
I don’t excuse Collins or Snowe for their intransigence, but Reid deliberately exacerbated the situation when he refused to allow normal parliamentary rules for amendments…and he knew exactly what the outcome would be.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Nope. An appeal to authority is a statement about the validity of a logical argument. I haven’t made any statement about the validity of any particular argument. In fact, I haven’t seen you or Amanda actually make one.
Simply noting that someone knows more about a subject than you do is not an appeal to authority, any more than calling someone a moron is an ad homenim fallacy. In both cases, there needs to be 1) a statement about the truth value of 2) a logical argument. There is neither here.
Little pet peeve of mine, when people misuse these logical terms like this.
@celticdragonchick:
Ah. Well, then, right you are. Barack Obama is not any sort of expert historian.
beergoggles
Sweet! DADT completely struck down
All Obama needs to do is threaten the Senate that he will not appeal it if they don’t pass the repeal in the lame duck session.
HyperIon
@aimai joked about her comment getting front-paged
OK, that comment made me go back and read JC’s update. At that point I realized he was quoting YOUR very reasonable previous comment, which I had liked when I read it originally.
As always thanks for spelling out the details. And for making a coherent argument.
AxelFoley
@Sly:
Exactly.
Mnemosyne
@celticdragonchick:
Ah, so when the proven liars tell you that it was all Harry Reid’s fault, it must be true, because it’s not like they’ve ever lied to you before.
Why do I have a feeling that if Reid had done what Collins claimed she wanted, you would now be screaming about how stupid and weak Reid is because, gosh, once they were allowed to put unlimited amendments on the bill, the Republicans put unlimited amendments on the bill and the vote never happened because multiple bullshit votes were required and the clock ran out. Hoocouldaknowed that the dishonest liars would lie again?
Funny that even if Reid did what you claim you wanted him to do, the outcome would have been the same (hint: that’s because that was what the Republicans planned to do) and you still would be screaming about how Harry Reid sucks and Obama hates gay people. Because you just can’t face the fact that Collins and Snowe lied to you when they said they cared about gay rights and wanted to end DADT. Republican gains in November were more important to them than gay rights, but I guess that’s Harry Reid’s fault, too.
Chrisd
@Midnight Marauder:
Meh.
I’ve read enough of your posts about Obama–too many–to believe any of this. If the Democrats were sailing to victory this November, you’d be singing a different tune about what the election had to do about Obama.
Sorry, to me you are whistling past the graveyard.
Chrisd
Where I live, people don’t have jobs and are terrified of losing their homes. Period. They are not bitching about taxes, TARP, or death panels. They have a damn good idea of what Obama promised and what he’s delivered. If you are equating disaffected Democrats with ignorant tea party Republicans, you are in for a surprise.
HyperIon
@beergoggles says:
Interesting. The caption to the photo states that this action ends “the military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops”.
IANAL. I wish someone who IS could explain the part about how before DADT, the ban was on ALL gay troops.
This article seems to contradict the assertion made by some here that killing DADT won’t do the trick wrt letting gay people openly serve in the military.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
No, he is not.
His friend Professor Gates at Harvard is, and I am familiar with Gates’ work.
I am quite capable of making up my own mind based on my observations, and I think the President is dead, flat wrong if he asserts that legislative processes were more important than judicial outcomes in the Civil Rights Era.
You can agree with whoever you like.
Paula
@celticdragonchick:
I never said that the Illinois rep. version of Obama said that one was “more important” than the other, only that the historical viewpoint of the Civil Rights Era as a court- and protest- driven movement tended to de-emphasize the importance of legislative battles in securing rights, and that many of the whinging about so-called “judicial activism” nowadays came from an unresolved tension between two processes. Or something. Like I said, RP doesn’t work for me, so it’s been @ least a year and a half since I heard this particular discussion.
The idea of “judicial activism” was, per this discussion, not an actual problem so much as a symptom of something else unresolved within the way the body politic thought about the relationship between rights and the state’s right to enforce them. The court battles were OF COURSE IMPORTANT TO GAINING RIGHTS, but considering how many of those rights are still held in contention today, it was clearly not enough of a resolution.
JESUS CHRIST ON A POGO STICK.
Paula
Oh, right: this was the very same interview that the wingnuts were going crazy over because of the phrase “redistribution of wealth”:
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/10/28/the-2001-obama-interview-transcribed/
Midnight Marauder
@Chrisd:
My position has been pretty consistent on this point for a long time: Elections are inherently local affairs. That’s not something that changed because Obama was elected and half the country has flipped the fuck out. And yes, you are right. If Democrats had somehow managed to head into October well-poised to extend their majority in the House, the conversation between us would be radically different. As would the state of affairs in the country and the entire political dynamic in Washington D.C. Who gives a fuck about things that never did and never will happen? Was that even a remotely realistic scenario to even spend the time analyzing? No, I do not think so.
As a wise man once said, “I don’t really mind if it’s over your head, ’cause the job of resurrectors is to wake up the dead.”
@Chrisd:
This is my point in a nutshell. What people are bitching about where you live does not reflect on what people are bitching about elsewhere around the country. And the ignorance I mentioned in the post you cite had no partisan affiliation, because it extends to people of all walks of political life in this country.
Karen
@aimai:
Bet you he wouldn’t be getting this venom if it was Hillary Clinton not passing DADT. And sorry, if he were white it wouldn’t be an issue either. As a social liberal but basically a moderate Democrat, I’ve noticed that with a lot of the people to the left of me, or far left of me it’s all “what have you done for me lately?” They’re waiting with their feet out the door for a reason to bail.
I hope they enjoy what’s left of Obama’s term since I am almost certain he won’t win a second term. Scapegoats never do. But if they’re thinking DOMA/DADT/ENDA will become the law of the land I have some swamp land to sell them.
Once President Palin is in office and her Administration passes federal laws that makes it illegal for gays and lesbians to have children and they’re forced to give them up whether they adopted the children or gave birth to them I hope they enjoy it because it will never change. And maybe, just maybe, schools will still be able to hire gays and lesbians (fat chance). Who knows? Maybe rather than getting things changed in a slow trickle they’d rather just have no rights at all.
Think I’m just blowing smoke? Virginia’s Governor has told the Tea Party that he backs a Constitutional Amendment where
How much you want to bet that anything GLBT will be part of it? Or Civil Rights? Or the how about the growing movement saying that the 14th Amendment was never really ratified and therefore, only white people have the right to vote. They wouldn’t even have to impeach Obama because, legally, slavery was never outlawed.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_tea_party_its_worse_than_you_think_20101007/
When all civil rights are gone because, pshaw, woman should never have been given the vote and we know that pesky 14th amendment issue, let’s see what it will be like to be GLBT in America.
Hate Obama all you want. Stay home, teach the Democrats and Obama a lesson about what happens when you don’t kiss the ring.Just keep one thing in mind. A good many of the FDL Hamsher types have no fear of losing their insurance or their rights. It’s easy to push for everything when they lose NOTHING either way.
PaulB