• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

apdst said:
Again, you're wrong. How is it so hard for people to understand that the ban on gays in the military hasn't been lifted?
Click to expand...

But the process to discharge people for being gay has been stopped. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
 
apdst said:
The funniest part of all this, is when the JCS tells the circuit court to eat **** and die and dare the circuit to do something about it.
Click to expand...

Which would leave the JCS open to prosecution. They are not above the law.
 
Redress said:
But the process to discharge people for being gay has been stopped. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Well, actually, it hasn't...:rofl!!

The protections that DADT provided have been removed.
 
WI Crippler said:
The question I am having, is that at what level of the court system do they have the authority to go from upholding legislative law, to overturning it? I'm not law savvy at all, and I don't understand how someone in # circuit court can strike down legislative law passed in Washington D.C. I would figure that is the purview of the Supreme Court exclusively, but it appears that may be wrong.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, any federal court can strike down a federal law(subject to appeal). There is a multi-teir system but the where the court is only matters in which cases it receives. Of course, I am not a legal expert either and with Right was here to comment on this for us.
 
Redress said:
Which would leave the JCS open to prosecution. They are not above the law.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah! Like that's going to happen. Especially since, now, gays are open game.
 
apdst said:
Well, actually, it hasn't...:rofl!!

The protections that DADT provided have been removed.
Click to expand...

Prove this. I proved mine, you prove your claim. If there is no process for discharge, then how are discharges going to happen?
 
apdst said:
Uh, yeah! Like that's going to happen. Especially since, now, gays are open game.
Click to expand...

Again, you have shown no proof, nor any evidence whatsoever this is the case.
 
WI Crippler said:
The question I am having, is that at what level of the court system do they have the authority to go from upholding legislative law, to overturning it? I'm not law savvy at all, and I don't understand how someone in # circuit court can strike down legislative law passed in Washington D.C. I would figure that is the purview of the Supreme Court exclusively, but it appears that may be wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a good question and I'm not 100% sure either. I know when it comes to matters of Constitutionality, SCOTUS can definitely override the legislature if the wrong kinds of laws are made. I'm curious to know what the criteria were for stopping the military from enforcing DADT in this case. My guess would be Equal Protection, but that's just a hunch.

RightNYC needs to grace us with his knowledge.
 
apdst said:
Uh, yeah! Like that's going to happen. Especially since, now, gays are open game.
Click to expand...

Open game? What does that even mean? It's not like the military is allowed to gang beat gays now, and it's not like there are suddenly big gay circuit parties happening in military bases the world over (although the though of that is rather amusing). The military, as of right now, is not allowed to enforce DADT.

Let me make it simple for you:

1) Being openly gay in the military is still against the rules.

2) Right now the military cannot punish someone for being openly gay.

The two are separate but related. The separation is important in understanding the nature of this ruling. It is still not really safe to be out of the closet for a couple of reasons. One is that #2 could be reversed, in which case if you come out now, you could be kicked out later. The other reason is that #1 still makes it unacceptable, even if you can't be punished for it.

I seriously doubt we are going to see gays coming out right now. The whole rule needs to be destroyed before that can safely happen.
 
apdst said:
Actually, Article 124 is enforced on heteros. Since DADT has been dealt a staggering blow, it will be enforced, even moreso on gays. Why, you ask will it be enforced harder on gays, now? Well, because of this decision, the military is no longer prohibited from asking if someone is gay. I hope you're happy with the results.
Click to expand...

I'm not too worried. It's all just posturing until it reaches the Supreme Court. By then, the public pressure to repeal it and the uniform code rules should be great enough. If not, then it will be national security that suffers.
 
Orion said:
The legislative laws can be struck down if they are unconstitutional, and DADT fits the bill. The term "judical activism" doesn't really mean anything. If judges make decisions within the confines of their responsibilities and powers, then they aren't stepping out of line, even if we happen to disagree. Judical activism just means you disagree with the ruling... in which case, just be honest and say you disagree. Don't act like the judges are abusing power when they're not.
Click to expand...

"Activist Judges" is just a term that the right wing whackos like to use whenever they disagree with a judicial decision. They have no problem when judges overturn laws or make judicial decisions on issues that they support. In fact, they are actively seeking to put "activist judges" on the bench to overturn the one issue that they care about more than anything - Roe v. Wade. Its hypocrisy at its core...
 
apdst said:
Possibly, but neither of us have any evidence to support our individual points of view.



IMO, the door is being flung wide open for a witch hunt on gays in the miltiary. That's why I've advocated for DADT to remain in place and the ban on gays be lifted. This is all being done bass ackwards. But, again, we'll see.
Click to expand...

First, I said that I have personally seen gays discharged for just being gay. For me, that is proof that there are gays being discharged in the military just because they are gay, and not because they are causing any other problems or aren't doing their jobs. I have no idea what the percentages are for those who are just found out to be gay, those who turn themselves in, or those who are discipline problems (although if they are discipline problems, then it wouldn't take DADT to remove them from the service).

Second, maybe you should have read the post I made right above the one you quoted where I explicitly said that I included the code to keep gays from serving in the military as DADT. I figured it should be fine since the media and our own Congress refers to them as if they are one (which, honestly, they pretty much are). The addendum to that bill that didn't pass was actually going to completely remove the code that bans gay from serving in the military, which includes DADT. It was packaged and sold as being a bill to repeal DADT though, and when it hit the media, they simply stated the bill was removing DADT, although technically the wording would have removed all the parts of that code which keep gays from serving at all.
 
WI Crippler said:
The question I am having, is that at what level of the court system do they have the authority to go from upholding legislative law, to overturning it? I'm not law savvy at all, and I don't understand how someone in # circuit court can strike down legislative law passed in Washington D.C. I would figure that is the purview of the Supreme Court exclusively, but it appears that may be wrong.
Click to expand...

The case is in the 9th Circuit because the person that the Log Cabin Republicans are using for judicial standing is (or was) stationed in Arizona. All three levels of the federal court system can overrule a law (district, circuit, and SCOTUS).

With that said, the Supreme Court will probably overrule this judge. They typically reserve issues involving the military to the executive (the constitutional Commander in Chief) or to the legislature. They rarely interfere unless there is an explicit clause in the Constitution to direct them otherwise. This is due to the clause in our Constitution that states the President:

"...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Article II, Section 2, Clause I

The ruling: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Lawsuit Documents
 
The_Patriot said:
Except that when a Circuit Court rules that it usually only affects that circuit. The only federal court that affects every state equally is the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Due to DADT being a federal law, this ruling applies to the entire country (if not successfully appealed).
 
Here's a question for those thinking that this is progress: Why should Civil Law at any level apply to the Armed Forces (???) Now I think that the SCOTUS should of course be the Final Authority - but lower than that it's either CIC or the Military Courts.

I know some can come up witth a few bizarre overlaps - but I would suggest they are aberrations and should be viewed as such. Anybody heard of that word Discipline ??
 
Ned Racine said:
Here's a question for those thinking that this is progress: Why should Civil Law at any level apply to the Armed Forces (???) Now I think that the SCOTUS should of course be the Final Authority - but lower than that it's either CIC or the Military Courts.

I know some can come up witth a few bizarre overlaps - but I would suggest they are aberrations and should be viewed as such. Anybody heard of that word Discipline ??
Click to expand...

Civilian supremecy. The military exists to serve civilians, not the other way around.
 
Ned Racine said:
Here's a question for those thinking that this is progress: Why should Civil Law at any level apply to the Armed Forces (???) Now I think that the SCOTUS should of course be the Final Authority - but lower than that it's either CIC or the Military Courts.

I know some can come up witth a few bizarre overlaps - but I would suggest they are aberrations and should be viewed as such. Anybody heard of that word Discipline ??
Click to expand...

Because the military is not separate from the country. Those who serve are a part of this country, and still bound by, and protected by, our laws.
 
I would very much support a Constitutional Amendment that would permit the removal of any Federal Judge all the way up to the Supreme Court by a 2/3 vote of "WE THE PEOPLE" for a few things such as "Judicial Activism," and I would also like to as part of that a law the says once a decision is made in a case or on a law by the Supreme Court may never be reviewed again.

Just thinking out loud, Something needs to be done to end the craziness.

I would also like to see a way for "WE THE PEOPLE" to remove any elected office with a vote of no confidence and if were a President all we should have to do is have another person on the Ballot to replace them so we would never have even think about having an imbecile like Biden, or Dan Quayle make us afraid to get rid of someone who lied their way in to Office, or turns out to be Anti-American.

As for the Gay ruling when and if it proves to be a mistake that leads to death them the Judge who made the decision should face prison for manslaughter.
 
roguenuke said:
First, I said that I have personally seen gays discharged for just being gay. For me, that is proof that there are gays being discharged in the military just because they are gay, and not because they are causing any other problems or aren't doing their jobs. I have no idea what the percentages are for those who are just found out to be gay, those who turn themselves in, or those who are discipline problems (although if they are discipline problems, then it wouldn't take DADT to remove them from the service).

Second, maybe you should have read the post I made right above the one you quoted where I explicitly said that I included the code to keep gays from serving in the military as DADT. I figured it should be fine since the media and our own Congress refers to them as if they are one (which, honestly, they pretty much are). The addendum to that bill that didn't pass was actually going to completely remove the code that bans gay from serving in the military, which includes DADT. It was packaged and sold as being a bill to repeal DADT though, and when it hit the media, they simply stated the bill was removing DADT, although technically the wording would have removed all the parts of that code which keep gays from serving at all.
Click to expand...

The ban on gays serving in the military isn't a part of US code.

I invite you to show me where it is.
 
Orion said:
Open game? What does that even mean? It's not like the military is allowed to gang beat gays now, and it's not like there are suddenly big gay circuit parties happening in military bases the world over (although the though of that is rather amusing). The military, as of right now, is not allowed to enforce DADT.

Let me make it simple for you:

1) Being openly gay in the military is still against the rules.

2) Right now the military cannot punish someone for being openly gay.

The two are separate but related. The separation is important in understanding the nature of this ruling. It is still not really safe to be out of the closet for a couple of reasons. One is that #2 could be reversed, in which case if you come out now, you could be kicked out later. The other reason is that #1 still makes it unacceptable, even if you can't be punished for it.

I seriously doubt we are going to see gays coming out right now. The whole rule needs to be destroyed before that can safely happen.
Click to expand...

1) You're correct and catching on fast.

2) Oh, but yes they can. There hasn't been a injunction filed against the actual DoD regulations that ban gays from the military.
 
apdst said:
Well, actually, it hasn't...:rofl!!

The protections that DADT provided have been removed.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Uh, yeah! Like that's going to happen. Especially since, now, gays are open game.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Prove this. I proved mine, you prove your claim. If there is no process for discharge, then how are discharges going to happen?
Click to expand...

Just bumping this sequence to see if you will actually show proof of your point. I have already proved my claim, now it's your turn.
 
apdst said:
The ban on gays serving in the military isn't a part of US code.

I invite you to show me where it is.
Click to expand...

Really, it's not?

United States Code: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces | LII / Legal Information Institute

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.
Click to expand...

Care to try again?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm not too worried. It's all just posturing until it reaches the Supreme Court. By then, the public pressure to repeal it and the uniform code rules should be great enough. If not, then it will be national security that suffers.
Click to expand...

That's why the military should handle this, vice having it shoved down their throats.
 
Redress said:
Really, it's not?

United States Code: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces | LII / Legal Information Institute



Care to try again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really, it's not. I would love to try again. I give you Defense Directive 1332.14:

(1) Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Military Services under the terms set forth in subparagraph 8.a.(2) of this enclosure. Homosexual conduct includes is

DoDI 1332.14, August 28, 2008

engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, a statement by a Service member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be the same biological sex. A statement by a Service member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts is grounds for separation not because it reflects the Service member’s sexual orientation, but because the statement indicates a likelihood that the Service member engages in or will engage in homosexual acts. A Service member’s sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to continued service under this paragraph unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in subparagraph 8.a.(2) of this enclosure.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p.pdf
Click to expand...

Pages 17 and 18
 
apdst said:
Yeah, really, it's not. I would love to try again. I give you Defense Directive 1332.14:



Pages 17 and 18
Click to expand...

Yes, I linked to DoDD 1332.14 earlier refuting you. Guess how DoDD 1332.14 came about...hint: it's the DoD taking the law and putting it into a military directive.

Now, about your claims that you still have not proven...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom