• 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

I hope they appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. It'll be another 17 years before Congress gets around to voting on it. We might as well just get it struck down when Congress can't even make sure its military policies aren't hurting national security and Constitutional rights.
 
apdst said:
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...

The amendment to the defense appropriations bill that did not pass the senate would have taken care of this in one fell swoop. However, the judge does not make law, and cannot do it all.
 
jamesrage said:
If the judge has no authority then what good is the ruling? Its like a judge in Spain trying to try Bush for war crimes, if the judge has no authority then it is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Well - if he had no authority then it qualifies for appeal.

Appeals in federal-court don't have very far up the rung to travel - and whatever comes from that appeal ruling *is it* . . absolute final.
 
apdst said:
yes, I agree with that. However, a civilian judge doesn't have authority over the UCMJ and military regulations. i.e sodomy is still a crime under the UCMJ and punishable by courts martial. Also, DADT isn't the actual ban on gays serving in the miltiary. That ban was first instituted by Harry Truman and later reinforced by Reagan.
Click to expand...

Who cares? They don't enforce the sodomy ban on heterosexual people, so I doubt they will enforce it on gay people.
 
Redress said:
The amendment to the defense appropriations bill that did not pass the senate would have taken care of this in one fell swoop. However, the judge does not make law, and cannot do it all.
Click to expand...

Unless the SCOTUS overturns its self - which it has done before, most recently with the two sodomy law cases it took to the top.
 
Redress said:
The injunction was for discharges under DADT. I think most if not all(probably all) discharges for being gay are under DADT rules, then this stops, temporarily at least, discharges for people being gay. Sodomy laws are, as always, a red herring, since they would have to be enforced the same for every one, which means just don't do it where others can see and nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Since DADT and the ban on gays are two different things, there's no way that could be the case, unless the judge is now saying that now need less evidence of a service member being gay, to disharge him.
 
AFAIK, the current ruling is about dismissing people for being gay and investigations under way. It's technically not saying that DADT is gone, just that it can't be enforced. So, speaking strictly, it is still illegal to be openly gay in the military, but as of this ruling nothing can be done about it. DADT is therefore, effectively, no longer applicable, even the rule itself hasn't been removed.

This is why I was never interested in becoming a lawyer. Too many technicalities.
 
Redress said:
The amendment to the defense appropriations bill that did not pass the senate would have taken care of this in one fell swoop. However, the judge does not make law, and cannot do it all.
Click to expand...

Which means that it nothing more than judicial activism. Yes?
 
CriticalThought said:
Who cares? They don't enforce the sodomy ban on heterosexual people, so I doubt they will enforce it on gay people.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
Which means that it nothing more than judicial activism. Yes?
Click to expand...

What? The sentence you quoted is not relevant to "activism." It was describing what the judicial branch does.

I've yet to ever read a claim of judicial activism that isn't best translated as "that judge did something I disagree with!"
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Since DADT and the ban on gays are two different things, there's no way that could be the case, unless the judge is now saying that now need less evidence of a service member being gay, to disharge him.
Click to expand...

No they are not two different things.
 
apdst said:
Which means that it nothing more than judicial activism. Yes?
Click to expand...

No, judicial activism would have been to create a whole new law.
 
Indeed, they can ask and get answered, but they now cannot do anything about the answer they get. For now. Gays are being told not to come out until it is settled for sure, whether in the Supreme Court or by the Congress.

But not being able to enforce DADT is good. Having to study it just delayed ending it that much longer. :-( It's just a lousy law altogether.

Regards from Rosie
 
Rosie, the warning for gays to still not come out comes from a private advocacy group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. It will probably not be seen by all gay service people, though any gay servicemember who does not follow the words from SLDN is a fool, it is a truly great group.
 
The_Patriot said:
There aren't any military bases in California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming? By military bases I am also referring to federal armories that belong to the reserve components of the federal military in addition to the normal military bases. The judge's court is in the 9th US Circuit Court.
Click to expand...

Well of course there are, but there are bases elsewhere is what I am getting at. I just don't understand the need for districts/circuits, if the effect of their rulings are going to be considered nationwide.
 
WI Crippler said:
Well of course there are, but there are bases elsewhere is what I am getting at. I just don't understand the need for districts/circuits, if the effect of their rulings are going to be considered nationwide.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
No, judicial activism would have been to create a whole new law.
Click to expand...

He is trying to cancel a federal law and in doing so by passing the legislative branch of the gov. A perfect case of judicial activism.........
 
Redress said:
Rosie, the warning for gays to still not come out comes from a private advocacy group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. It will probably not be seen by all gay service people, though any gay servicemember who does not follow the words from SLDN is a fool, it is a truly great group.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't come out if I were in the service, even in light of this ruling. If you do and the ruling gets overturned, you're screwed.
 
RosieS said:
Indeed, they can ask and get answered, but they now cannot do anything about the answer they get. For now. Gays are being told not to come out until it is settled for sure, whether in the Supreme Court or by the Congress.

But not being able to enforce DADT is good. Having to study it just delayed ending it that much longer. :-( It's just a lousy law altogether.

Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...

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?
 
Navy Pride said:
He is trying to cancel a federal law and in doing so by passing the legislative branch of the gov. A perfect case of judicial activism.........
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
apdst said:
Please practice what you preach and show us how they are the same. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

And as always I come through when asked. The policy banning homosexuals from serving in the military is DoDD 1332.14(http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/regulation41.pdf). Now here is a quote from the directive enacting DADT(http://www.sldn.org/page/-/Website/The%20Law/The%20Law%20-%20Implementation%20of%20DoD%20Policy.pdf)

Revisions have been made to the policy pertaining to separation for homosexual conduct reflected in DoDD 1332.14, “Enlisted Administrative Separations,” and DoDD 1332.30, “Separations of Regular Officers,” to emphasize that DoD judges the suitability of persons to serve in the Armed Forces on the basis of conduct to distinguish sexual orientation, which is personal and private, from homosexual acts and from statements that reflect an intent or propensity to engage in homosexual acts; and to make clear the procedural rights of a servicemember proposed for separation as a result of a statement that he or she is a homosexual.
Click to expand...

In summary, DADT changed the military policy.
 
Navy Pride said:
He is trying to cancel a federal law and in doing so by passing the legislative branch of the gov. A perfect case of judicial activism.........
Click to expand...

If a law violates the constitution, that is what the judge is supposed to do. That is not judicial activism.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom