The Plum Line had a very sharp observation about DADT last week:
The White House strategy on repealing DADT was premised on minimizing the potential for a backlash by appeasing all the essential stakeholders — Congress, the military, and activists committed to repealing the policy. But by blocking repeal and allowing a judge to declare the policy unconstitutional, Republicans could sidestep the argument over an unpopular policy by turning it into one about unelected judges imposing their will on the electorate.
That strategy may seem cynical, but it ultimately fits the die-hard opposition strategy Republicans have deployed for the past two years. If DADT repeal is inevitable, they might as well make sure it occurs on terms most favorable to them — and that means being able to argue about the tyranny of activist judges, rather than the straightforward injustice of preventing patriots from serving openly simply because of who they are.
The Republican strategy with so-called “cultural issues” is to keep fighting on them after the issues have been decided. That way the issues can continue to be political winners for them (perhaps in some small way) long after the argument is over for all intents and purposes. You can’t actually repeal Civil Rights legislation but you can tell endless stories about young bucks buying T-bone steaks, you can’t actually repeal Roe v. Wade (because if it was repealed, that would be the end of the modern Republican party, it would have to be reconstituted long different lines), but you can rail against activist judges etc. etc. In a lot of cases, people who are happy about how the issue was decided don’t really care after a few years, because they think (mostly correctly) that it’s over anyway, whereas Jesus freaks, oldsters, confederates can get fired up about trying to turn back the clock ad infinitum.
I’m not completely convinced there’s that much in it for Republicans to keep blocking DADT; certainly the only reasonable angle is that it gives them another venue to whine about activists judges and the librul agenda.
Our current political system is a lot like an endless Civil War reenactment, only with worse consequences. (And who enjoys Civil War reenactments? White male southerners, the heart of the Republican party.)
steviez314
But it’s not even an issue to win them a general election–70% of the public wants repeal. It’s not a 30-40-30 kind of issue like abortion.
It’s all about primaries and that’s it. No one can see any further than that.
Comrade Luke
Crap, you just posted this while I was commenting on the other thread, and my comment is probably more appropriate here.
The headlines for this shit kills me.
DADT:
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal Falls Short in Senate.
Dream Act:
Senate Democrats Put “Dream Act” on Hold.
Contrast that with blocking health aid for 9/11 workers:
Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers.
So basically, anything 9/11 is super important, so they correctly blame Republicans. Versus the Dream Act and DADT are Democrat-led reforms, so it’s their fault they didn’t move on even though they didn’t move on for exactly the same reasons, by the same Republicans.
Bunch of fuckers.
cathyx
I’ve always said this about the abortion issue too. It will never get repealed because it brings out the voters when they need them.
Dexter
@Comrade Luke: Attach 9/11 to every bill; problem solved.
DougJ
@cathyx:
And if it was repealed there would be hell to pay among Republican women, who would soon become former Republican women.
I have a friend who is a doctor and a Republican. She says the issue she cares most about is reproductive rights. Doesn’t affect her vote though because she thinks Roe v. Wade is final. I asked her what would happen if it was repealed by Republican judges. She says she’d switch parties and never vote for another Republican ever. There may not be a lot of people like her out there, but I bet there’s at least 3 or 4%. Republicans lose them and they don’t win another national election for 20 years (I’m not sure they will anyway at this point, because of immigration).
Mike Kay (Team America)
the problem I don’t think the current supreme court will overturn DADT.
I don’t even think a circuit will uphold the district court’s ruling.
Kryptik
@steviez314:
They will deal with this issue like every other issue they have: lie and misinform. A majority of the people want to tax the rich more, a majority want a better health system, a majority want less income and economic stratification. But they don’t vote on that, due to attaching certain poison labels to issues or simply misinforming about policies, like how ‘higher taxes on the rich means YOU might lose your job!’ or ‘Gays in the military means we’ll have a draft, since soldiers hate the gays!’, bullshit like that.
John Cole
DougJ- yes, but there is also CONSIDERABLE immediate political gain to halting any and all gains by Democrats.
A good chunk of the Democratic party, as the same commenters who proved it on the last thread will prove on this one, are quite honestly stupid enough to blame the Democrats and Obama for GOP perfidy. If only the Democrats and Obama had “fought harder” or “used the bully pulpit” more, then GOP assholes would vote differently. Really- I read it on twitter.
The Republicans know this- stop any Democratic initiative and you can start the circular firing squad.
Moonbatting Average
Fucking shit-for-brains assbag motherfucking fucknozzles! Fuck the Senate GOP sideways with a garden rake. I am fucking tired of this shit.
cleek
oddly, NPR seems to have woken up from its election-induced stupor and has been delicately pointing out that the GOP is to blame for all of these popular things dying in the Senate.
perhaps, if they can tell the truth, and if the rest of the MSM will follow suit, the general public (mush-brained tho it remains) could, maybe, catch on and recognize what’s actually going on.
also, i just bought a PowerBall ticket. when i win on Saturday, what should i buy ?
Hawes
@steviez314: Yeah, I don’t see this playing out like other wedge issues, like abortion.
People want to see this policy end.
The real problem is that Obama tried to get a Congressional overturn of the program, but it took too long to get the Pentagon report out (I blame inertia, not conspiracy).
So in a perfect world, LGBT activists would see that Democrats tried to overturn DADT and failed because Republicans are assholes.
But I’m sure this is also Obama’s fault. Just watch.
Hopefully, he’ll issue an executive order in such a way as to let the court case proceed to bring some finality on this.
JGabriel
DougJ:
Typo? I’m guessing it’s supposed to be turn back the clock, though I kind of like turn back the block — like they want to take their block back because, you know, block’s rights.
Though it has an urban feel that doesn’t quite match up to the real American mind-set.
.
steviez314
I have never really come down hard on Obama about this since I always though legislation was the way to go, but I think the time has come for him to finally acknowledge that:
70% of the public;
57% of the Senate;
a majority of the house;
most servicepeople;
the Pentagon;
favor repeal, and that courts have called it unconstitutional,
AND SIGN THE DAMNED EXECUTIVE ORDER ALREADY.
DougJ
@JGabriel:
Thanks, I’ll fix it.
jo6pac
@cleek: A congress critter of course
trollhattan
@Comrade Luke:
Makes me wish they’d held the 9/11 workers vote on Wingnut Christmas(tm) day itself. I fear it will get buried in everything else that happened today (and there’s a lot of day left for still more surprises).
Also, too, I missed the vote when the Senate killed Cole’s engine.
Makewi
If everything is the fault and/or responsibility of the GOP, then it would seem the obvious solution is to just stop voting for Democrats and start trying to gain influence with the Republicans. It seems the Donkey is obsolete.
How does one repeal a USSC decision?
beltane
I think I would enjoy Civil War reenactments if they involved reenacting Sherman’s march to the sea.
agrippa
Issue the executive order.
Zifnab
Roe v Wade is almost trivial at this point. Abortion is legal in name only. Clinics that offer the service have come under financial assault. Doctors are regularly shot at. State laws make abortion embarrassing, complicated, and expensive.
When feminists insist that abortion isn’t about the baby, it’s about the woman, they aren’t lying. Some of the more favorite Republican laws basically prohibit a pregnant woman from crossing state lines, if it can be shown she might maybe could kinda be considering not caring the baby to term. Others try to treat vaginal cysts like human beings.
Repeal, at this point, is almost unnecessary. We’ve done one better and more-or-less legalized terrorism. Ask any Saudi Prince and he’ll tell you that’s far more lucrative.
cathyx
@@DougJ: Those republican women will get out and vote every election if there is even a hint that roe v. wade could be challenged. They are a sure bet. The same can be said about any challenge to the gun laws that even hint at the democrats taking away their guns. Need a strong republican show at an election? Just mention abortion rights could get overturned or the gun ban enacted and it’ll happen.
News Reference
I’ve never understood why the legal barriers of DADT couldn’t have simply been circumvented with a Presidential Stop-Loss order.
Aren’t we in a time of war?
Doesn’t every armed forces member count, now more than ever?
Moral courage could easily flip this problem on it’s head:
Reinstate gays and force the right-wingers to use the Courts to deny the right to serve in the military.
Or is moral courage only found in “sanctimnoious” ‘purists’?
trollhattan
@Makewi:
1. Congress passes law.
2. President signs law.
As to the rest, it matters not who votes for the GOP, they don’t do their members’ bidding and never have. They harvest votes on behalf of their corporate and ideological masters. Works, too.
Omnes Omnibus
@cleek: A senator.
Violet
@DougJ:
I don’t think Democrats should be counting on Latino votes. A lot of them voted Republican in Texas.
and
Democrats need to be working for votes in the Latino community or they won’t get them.
cleek
@Omnes Omnibus:
nah. they aren’t good for anything.
Lev
Clearly, the Republicans are assholes.
However, if Obama holds a press conference and says that he’s going to order Eric Holder to drop his appeal in that court case that ruled DADT unConstitutional unless the Senate passes a repeal bill, a tactical defeat could become a strategic victory.
Really, if Obama wants this done, he has no other choices.
TheYankeeApologist
I think out of all the social issues in our country today, this one makes the absolute LEAST sense to me.
Judging by the last ten years, it seems there’s nothing Republicans love more than war, the more baseless and adventuresome, the better.
We’re not discussing The Gays getting married or holding office or anything else they hate . . . .we’re talking about handing them a fucking rifle and sending them to Afghanistan. If even THAT isn’t good enough for our gay Americans, what is?
Ozymandias, King of Ants
I hope the “activist judges” thing may comes back to bite them in the ass.
Who are the fucking “activist judges” now? Fucking republican appointees, that’s who.
Ana Gama
If the courts ultimately rule to take down DADT, the GOP will pay a price with the military. And I’d bet it will be a huge price.
Delaware Doug
That’s it. DADT repeal is dead, dead, dead.
Wasn’t someone on here blowing sunshine up our asses about how it was going to be repealed the other day?
Where is he now?
Mike Kay (Team America)
@News Reference:
it can be. but it’s only temporary.
it’s basic civics, usually taught in grade school, an executive order can not repeal or end a congressional act.
President Palin will lift the stop-loss during her inaugural speech.
Now that doesn’t mean obama shouldn’t do it. but for people have to realize, gay segregation comes back with Palin or Romney or Huck.
And don’t count on the right-wing activist Roberts court ultimately repealing this law.
I’m surprised you don’t know any of this. then, again, I’m not.
Ana Gama
@Lev: That might please the lefties, but it would surely piss off the military.
freelancer
@Omnes Omnibus:
@cleek:
Omni beat me to it, I was typing “half a Senator” when I saw your reply. Heh.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike Kay (Team America): In addition, if stop-loss is used, I would advise any gay service member to remain in the closet because they will be toast the second a Republican has the Presidency again
The Moar You Know
@steviez314: Can’t turn over a law via EO. Sorry.
Game’s over on this one.
Mike Kay (Team America)
@Lev: that’s not true.
the decision of one district court does not bind others. Only the supreme court can bind all courts.
stop and think. the ruling of one judge in alaska, for example, can not bind the hands of the entire united states.
Omnes Omnibus
@freelancer: I suppose it depends on which senator.
Violet
@Ana Gama:
What in the world kind of price would the GOP pay with the military if the courts rule to take down DADT? It’s not like the military members are suddenly going to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats if that happens. Defense contractors won’t suddenly stop giving money to Republicans. What price would they pay?
MikeJ
@cleek:
All new socks. Live like a madman. Throw all your old socks away.
Mike Kay (Team America)
How is it bloggers, people who are supposedly well read, have no idea how the federal judicial vertical and horizontal hierarchy works?
Dennis SGMM
@Omnes Omnibus:
There’s also this:
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Makewi
If President Palin manages to get DADT repealed it will also give rise to the birth of a new drag queen icon. Think of the opportunities!
jl
Turn the jobs situation around and all the GOP maneuvering and de facto coup plotting will not make a piss worth of difference.
So, in my view, it is a mistake to get too worked up about GOP plots and tricks and scheming.
Overall good policy that produces results will make all of it a useless waste of their time and effort.
Worrying and obsessing over GOP mind f*ck and inside baseball political games will just produce a kind of self induced learned helplessness, panic, and unstable fugue states of anger, despair, cynicism and flight response.
We will all end up like one of our dear front page posters, who will remain nameless.
matryoshka
@cleek: Three senate votes?
Omnes Omnibus
@Dennis SGMM: … and there is that. To allow gay service members to serve without fear of prosecution during their careers, the law needs to be changed. It is that simple. Obama cannot do this. It must be done in Congress.
MikeJ
@Dennis SGMM: Two points:
a) sodomy laws have been struck down by the USSC.
b) The (biggest) problem with DADT isn’t that it bans actions, it bans identification. You can be caught having homosexual sex and stay in the service as long as you swear you aren’t gay (queen for a day rule). You can get kicked out for identifying as gay even if they never catch you having sex.
Violet
@Dennis SGMM:
In some states, the definition of sodomy includes oral sex. I bet there are a lot of service members breaking that particular item in the Code.
stuckinred
@Dennis SGMM: Didn’t apply to Sin City at An Khe (or Phoenix City) , or Olangapo!
stuckinred
@Violet: Maybe it only applies in Conus!
Egypt Steve
So fuck ’em. Don’t let a judge make the decision. Next suit that’s filed, don’t contest it. Accept a default judgment.
Emerald
@cathyx:
I’ve used this argument on a pro-life friend, and I actually think I’m getting through to her. I say that making it a political issue was a losing battle for her side, because when you do that you lose half your audience, and plenty of Democrats could be persuaded to be pro-life.
Plus, the Republicans never will do anything about it, because that’s the issue that gets people like her to vote for them. They don’t intend ever to lose it as an issue. They had control of everything for years, and never lifted a finger on abortion.
Believe it or not I think I’m getting through to her.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
@cleek:
Start your own PAC and think tank.
CleekPAC. I like the sound of it.
Dennis SGMM
@Omnes Omnibus:
Exactly. Any temporary measure, satisfying as it surely would be, would leave those service members who came out vulnerable to court martial if the policy was changed in the future.
People who haven’t served, particularly in the U.S. Navy, have no idea how willing the military is to come down like a ton of bricks on gays.
Dennis SGMM
@stuckinred:
LOL! Didn’t apply, in that sense, at Benh Xe Moi, Chau Doc, or Vung Tau (Especially Vung Tau) either.
stuckinred
@Dennis SGMM: I’d think you’d maintain a low profile either way. That’s what the gay dudes I knew did way back when.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@cleek:
A pony, so you can tell the rest of us how good it feels to actually have one.
Dennis SGMM
@stuckinred:
They sure did. Because I was known as “Hippy” in my outfit one of our gay men felt safe in confiding in me. I hadn’t thought much about it until then and it made me furious that a damned good sailor had to live a lie.
Brachiator
@DougJ:
Maybe part of the point is that Republicans and other conservatives actually believe this stupid bullshit. The Tea Party people, etc., don’t care about dissing the liberal agenda. They want to expunge it. They don’t want to just whine about activist judges. They want to make sure that only “right thinking” judges get appointed.
There was, for example, this sad statistic from a September Huffington Post story:
The right doesn’t have to worry about whining about activist judges if they can prevent them from being confirmed.
Also, too, Americans seem to think that politics is some kind of debate or snark contest. But even the Brits are willing to go to the streets over attempts to squash the middle class.
The demographic trends may be against the right in the long term, but they are doing a pretty good job of impeding progress.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
DougJ @top
I think this is over analyzing the issue. Republicans hate Obama, hate the Dems in general, and hate the gays in particular, or if not then they passively support those Republicans who do hate all 3. How much more incentive do they need to do something that is a sharp stick in the eye for all 3 of those groups that they hate?
How many GOPsters do you imagine had to think for more than 30 seconds before deciding how to vote on this issue?
jwb
@cleek: “also, i just bought a PowerBall ticket. when i win on Saturday, what should i buy ?”
A Senator. I’ve heard they come cheap.
News Reference
“Mike Kay”: “it’s basic civics, usually taught in grade school, an executive order can not repeal or end a congressional act.”
You aren’t familiar with Obama’s circumvention of the Torture (Congressional) Act?
You aren’t familiar with Obama’s circumvention of FOIA with the torture photos?
So Obama’s authoritarians are okay with torturers going free despite the Congressional Act outlawing torture and they are okay with the unlawful censoring of torture evidence that a Judge declared the Freedom Of Information (Congressional) Act was should reveal?
But standing up for the civil rights of those that are willing to fight and die for our country isn’t something Obama’s authoritarian apologists will support?
“I’m surprised you don’t know any of this. then, again, I’m not.”
You’re right, I didn’t understand how deep the sewer was that Obama’s apologists had climed into.
DougJ
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Sure, but there’s at least one gay Republican man in the Senate and I bet there are others. I doubt the Senators as a group hate gay people very much.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: You are talking about the interpretation of laws, not overruling a law with an EO. Not an apples to apples comparison.
Tsulagi
Sure, they’d like it to go that way. They could add a niche flavor to their crack product line offereings like ending abortion, bringing the baby Jesus to the classrooms and all that other crap they have no real intention or desire of delivering. Drug dealers don’t want to cure their addict customers, they want to keep selling them on the promised crack. Give them a taste now and then like Schiavo or restricting federal funds for abortion to keep them hooked. Be sure to blame those others guys (Dems and courts) as the reason they can’t fully fix.
Kinda funny seeing some of the family values warriors getting a sense of that by the end of W’s day. Rove knew how to sell that promised crack.
Woodrowfan
with cruise missiles and A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@TheYankeeApologist:
Because serving openly and honorably in the military is, especially in a militaristic society, the thin wedge that opens other doors, because of the personal honor and respect we give, or at least are by common courtesy expected to give, to those who serve. Once openly gay men and women are killed in battle and start filling up Arlington National Cemetary with their headstones, there is no going back. The rest of our homophobic laws will be doomed after that, just as Truman’s integration of the military was a turning point in the struggle for AA civil rights.
That is why the homophobes are fighting tooth-and-nail against DADT repeal.
Woodrowfan
Republicans hate
Obama, hatethe Dems in general, andhate the gays in particular,fixed
News Reference
From the LATimes:
“A report issued last week by UC Santa Barbara’s Palm Center research institute said Obama had the power to thwart the discharging of military personnel for their sexual orientation. Under the “stop-loss” provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said.
The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/20/nation/na-dont-ask20
Obama’s apologists might disagree, but there are strong legal grounds to argue that stop-loss can be used to circumvent the Congressional Act in a Time Of War.
Pangloss
@DougJ: I count three.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: He can end the discharges temporarily, but being gay and being in the military would still be illegal. That is because there is a a law that says so. L.A.W. Law.
Copied and pasted from a previous thread.
Omnes Omnibus
@Pangloss: Who? Seriously, I don’t know. I am assuming Graham based on the rumors, but then I draw a blank.
JPL
If a Gay Senator voted against DADT, they need to be outed. Only that way can they be stopped from spreading their hypocrisy.
RalfW
I hope this reinforces the generational gap for the GOP. I’m too old to really know this first hand (45 y.o.) but I gather young people think DADT and marriage bans are stupid. We just have to remind them that it’s nasty old REPUBLICAN white people like John McCain who love to hate on teh gays. (yeah, he has gay staffers, big whop. He hates on gays based on his votes and his public utterances, and even his wife and kid think he’s an ass about it).
Texas Dem
Or the GOP just doesn’t want to give Obama a “win,” and they understand that liberal and gay rights activists will vent their fury at Obama (more heckling) rather than the GOP assholes who are blocking repeal. And that, in turn, depresses Dem enthusiasm and turnout in 2012, thereby putting the GOP that much closer to unchallenged political power in 2013, probably under Sarah Palin or someone equally frightening.
Makewi
It was good politics on the part of Reid to bring this vote knowing as he did that the GOP had pledged not to let anything else through until the tax issue had been decided. It shows how serious he was about it actually passing. Well that and not allowing it as a stand alone issue.
News Reference
To reiterate my initial point:
There are strong legal grounds to argue that stop-loss can be used to circumvent the Congressional Act cited in Our Time Of War.
Signing an Executive Order to Stop-Loss gays being thrown out would force right-wingers to use the Courts to force compliance with their interpretation of the law.
If you are telling me that Obama can’t do that because of the Congressional Act, my response, again, is that Obama is then required to comply with Congressional Acts such as the Torture Act and the Freedom Of Information Act request to reveal the censored torture evidence.
It’s a twisted moral sewer to protect torturers and evidence of torture when Congressional Acts demand prosecution and then try to claim that Congressional Acts prevent basic human rights.
Brachiator
@DougJ:
Yeah, there are probably a number of closeted gay Republicans, and apparently quite a few gay Republican staffers.
I agree with you that the Senators as a group hate gays. Still doesn’t mean that they want to see gays recognized as equal citizens in American society.
Similarly, the Taliban probably don’t hate women. This, however, is cold comfort.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: To whom are you responding?
News Reference
“He can end the discharges temporarily, but being gay and being in the military would still be illegal. That is because there is a a law that says so.
Good, we agree: Obama has failed to legally do what he could do to stop the abuse of basic civil-rights.
TheYankeeApologist
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
You make an excellent point, but I am just utterly mystified that they are able to torpedo something that is quite clearly in our best interests to pass.
I am a WWII history buff, and I know that even in the throes of a segregated Army, they at least gave black soldiers SOMETHING to do, you know? It was disgusting and pathetic, but at least they were able to help fight the biggest threat to the world at the time, and their performance inspired Eisenhower to start prodding the Army to desegregate.
This is just insane.
RalfW
Blanche Lincoln didn’t vote: Profile in cowardice award.
Joe Manchin did vote, NO: Som’bich award.
Scott Brown, NO vote: two years and you’re outta there award.
RalfW
@News Reference: Now that asswipes like McCain have gone back on their work (whatever the fuck that ever meant anyway) that the’d vote yes if Generals asked for it. Or when a major, reputable report said it was time. Well, NOW Obama needs to take executive action.
If he’d taken action before Mullens and Gates and the almighty report, he’d be playing fully into the GOP talking points. But now, he’s gotta do it. Call it a stop loss order!
HyperIon
@cleek:
maybe they take seriously the repub threat to defund CPB and/or NPR?
that’s really the only reason i can think of.
it certainly is NOT because they want to do the right thing.
HyperIon
@News Reference has one of the ugliest websites I have ever seen. Truly breath-taking.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: No.
HyperIon
@Violet wrote :
And isn’t adultery forbidden as well?
Except…it’s not enforced.
Involved Parent
Mark my words: this Supreme Court is aggressively hunting for a way to find Title VII unconstitutional. See Boy Scouts v. Dale; Ricci v. DeStefano.
There’s a good chance that Title VII is history as soon as the Court reaches the constitutional question in Ricci.
HyperIon
@Omnes Omnibus asked:
The voices in his head?
News Reference
“isn’t adultery forbidden as well?”
hmm, technically yes
But the article cited has an interesting section:
“The UCMJ allows the President of the United States to administer the UCMJ by writing an Executive Order, known as the Manual for Court Martial (MCM). The MCM includes the UCMJ, and also supplements the UCMJ by establishing “Elements of Proof,” (exactly what the government must *prove* to prosecute an offense), an explanation of offenses, and maximum permissible punishments for each offense (among other things). While the MCM is an Executive Order, enacted by the President, in reality much of the contents are a result of military and federal appeals court decisions.”
That supports my argument for using a Stop-Loss Executive Order to legally circumvent DADT.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: No.
MAJeff
@Violet:
State sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. While they may still be on the books, oral sex is constitutionally protected private behavior.
Within the military, the Marcum case, drawing on Lawrence, held that the sodomy part of the code is only partially applicable. So, oral sex, even anal sex, is not completely forbidden in the military any longer.
Hawes
Obama never issues an executive order when there was a chance of getting congressional action. Hot, steamy, anonymous-in-a-bathroom congressional action.
But, now he’s got the DoD report, the CJCS and SoD on his side. Unless Lieberman can come through – holy fuck, did I just type that – on stand alone repeal, Obama will likely issue the stop-loss order that will solve nothing really.
Given that it’s a stop-loss order, I’m presuming that means the lawsuit against DADT will continue, since there is still standing.
And then Anthony Kennedy can decide if LGBT Americans can serve in the military. I’d give it 50-50, because he’s not a complete troglodyte.
News Reference
@ Omnes Omnibus
Your eloquence in service of bigoted policies is mesmerizing.
News Reference
“In U.S., 67% Support Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell””
Obama could stand up to the bigoted right-wing minority.
But we know he won’t.
And Obama’s authoritarians will defend Obama’s servility to right-wing bigots.
Mike M
There is no risk to any Republican for voting “no” to repeal DADT. Despite the fact that a huge percentage of the voting public supports repeal, it is only Democratic voters who might consider it when evaluating whether to support a candidate. For a Republican, these votes are evidence of how conservative they are, which for most of them is a badge of honor.
Obama did the smart thing by first demonstrating support from the military rank and file for the repeal of DADT. Gates has already put procedures in place that have effectively stopped discharges under DADT in anticipation of repeal. Evidence in the recent district court case showed that the military is already, in practice, following a stop-loss policy with combat troops, since the Army routinely delays any action under DADT until a tour of duty has ended.
What does Obama do now? I think that the most effective step may be to have the DOJ drop further appeals, preventing the case from reaching the SC.
A stop-loss order would not achieve the same results as a repeal of DADT. While in the service, gay service members would still be subject to severe discrimination without recourse and at the end of their service at risk for a less than honerable discharge.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: No.
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: Have you read anything that anyone has posted on the legalities involved? This was, of course, a rhetorical question.
News Reference
“Omnes Omnibus”, I understand you and the other’s claims.
You, Obama, and the others have begun to remind me of fictional Tom Sawyer’s Rube-Goldberg’esque attempt to free Jim at the end of the book Huckleberry Finn.
Sometimes it’s more complicated to do the wrong thing than to simply do the right thing.
Do you understand that?
Omnes Omnibus
@News Reference: Sometimes everything is complicated, and one of the complications is that the “easy, right thing to do” is not within the legal powers of the the President.
Karen
Lieberman and Collins introduce a stand alone DADT repeal bill.
Not sure if it makes a difference though.
Nick
@Mike M:
I think this is the MAIN reason why Democrats have no leverage. In national debates, whenever they have the public behind them, that includes numerous Republicans who would never vote Democrat no matter what they did, so Republicans can oppose popular things and still win votes of people who support Democratic ideas.
Republicans, on the other hand, often win votes of Democrats who agree with them on issues, so Democrats have to pander to those people, while Republicans don’t have to pander to the liberals in their party.
If you take out the percentage of Republicans who agree with Democrats on any single issue, suddenly Democrats end up in the minority in everything
Ija
@steviez314:
And what happens when our next president is Sarah Palin? Executive order is a temporary solution. If there is an executive order, lazy-ass Congress would have an excuse not to do anything.
News Reference
Ija
Obama can’t do the right thing now because Sarah Palin might be President in three years?
{face palm}
Wile E. Quixote
@News Reference:
Fuck off you Republican troll. Seriously. It’s been explained to you over and over and over again why President Obama can’t just wave a magic wand and make DADT go away, but despite that you’re still trotting out the same stupid arguments and attacking President Obama instead of bigoted pieces of shit like John McCain or Jim Manchin. This shows me that when it comes down to this issue you and your concern are as fake as Sarah Palin’s hunting trips. You could give a fuck less about DADT or gay rights in general, you’re just another whining asswipe who thinks he can gain cred by attacking the president.
Christ on a crutch, if you’re an example of what passes for a progressive these days then no fucking wonder that the Republicans keep kicking your asses. You’re every bit as stupid and willfully ignorant as any teabagger. If fucks like you could translate your bullshit into action you might get something done.
Wile E. Quixote
@News Reference:
And your petulant stupidity is annoying. You don’t give a fuck about DADT, if you did you’d be out protesting against the conservative bigots who are responsible for it.
ET
Here’s a question…
I assume if it is the law that the government has to defend it. How strongly do they have to defend it?
Vvixen
@Zifnab
Nullifying Roe V. Wade is beside the point. Abortion has already effectively been outlawed in many states because it is not accessible to the vast majority of the population. There is only one abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi, in the state capitol of Jackson. Residents of north and central Mississippi can come to abortion clinics in Memphis, but what about poor women who lack money and transportation? They are forced to carry to term. Is it any wonder that Mississippi has the highest teen birth rate in the nation, worst preterm birth rate in the nation, the highest infant mortality rate in the nation and the most children living in poverty in the nation.
And things can only get worse because a “personhood” amendment proposed to be on the ballot in 2011 would confer full rights of citizenship to fertilized eggs and fetuses, effectively outlawing many forms of contraception as well as abortion. Because the powerful churches are already heavily supporting this measure, if the amendment does appear on the ballot, it will most likely be approved by the voters.
Anti-abortion extremists have been trying for decades to find ways outlaw abortion despite Roe v. Wade, and they might just succeed this time.