• 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!

Obama Administration Seeks Delay of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Ruling

American said:
Where was this judge when the law was first passed?
Click to expand...

Do you not understand how the judicial branch works? Until a case comes to the judicial system, the judge cannot rule.
 
Redress said:
Which did not happen in this case, so the claim of activist judge just means judge who is disagreed with.
Click to expand...

I reckon that's why the most Libbo prez in history is appealing the decision?

This just ain't workin' out for ya'll. Is it?

Did I, or did I not predict that this wouldn't have the happy ending that you were wishing for?
 
Ned Racine said:
In other words YOU know "Damn Good and well" Where this is going but YOU do not care. You get a kick out of Institutions being forced to knuckle under . This is WHY the Church's are eventually going to be focused on.
Click to expand...

Oh noe. Theyre gonna be housed and married and all equal n stuff!
 
apdst said:
So, if a directive came down the chain of command that forced female soldiers to billet with male soldiers, against the will of the female soldiers; you would support that?
Click to expand...

Yes I would. It's pretty sad our country is more concerned about sex instead of violence.
 
Deuce said:
Why do you use a man's middle name in place of his first name?

Also, activist judge = judge who does something you disagree with.
Click to expand...


I disagree with all judges that defy the will of the people..........We have 3 separate branches of government in this country...........If you don't like that move to China or Cuba...........They only have one............
 
Redress said:
Probably for the reason he has given, that it should be done legislatively. You still have not shown any evidence of "activist judges" in this case.
Click to expand...

Bingo....................
 
in the summer of 09 the obama doj outraged gay supporters not just by defending doma against a constitutional challenge from a citizen in CA in, i believe, the 9th circuit

but even more incendiary was doj's comparison in its brief of gay marriage to incest and/or having relations with a 16 year old

also, obama's doj enfuriated our fussiest friends by arguing doma "does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits"

at the time, the doj was telling its gay supporters that it was OBLIGATED to mount its defense of congressional legislation, which assertion of compulsion was very controversial, many didn't buy it

The Justice Department Had a Choice

[Obama appointee Tony] West would probably say that he was "just doing his job." His career shows he has taken controversial cases and clients before, such as defending John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban) on charges of treason. White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Los Angeles Times that the Justice Department was following its normal practice of defending current law. "The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA," he said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Some advocates feel this is a double standard. The Justice Department chose not to prosecute officials in the Bush Administration for torture and other war crimes, even if their task is to "uphold the law." But prosecutors always have the discretion on whether or not to press charges, unlike a defendant forced to respond to a lawsuit. The Obama Administration arguably has a political double standard in this case, but it still doesn't answer the basic question: did the Justice Department have a choice?

Richard Socarides, a former top Justice Department official in the Clinton White House, argues that they did. "I know and accept that one of the Justice Department's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack," he wrote this weekend. "But not in all cases, certainly not in this case - and not in this way ... Where there are important political and social issues at stake, the President should make a policy decision first and then the lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president's policy decision, the policy decision should always win out."

Moreover, consider how California Attorney General Jerry Brown handled the suit against Proposition 8. Rather than defend state law (as his predecessor did for Prop 22), his office argued in front of the Supreme Court that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Kenneth Starr (on behalf of the religious right) intervened to defend Prop 8, which the court accepted. It is not unusual when a law gets challenged in court that some advocates fear the government will not vigorously defend it. Occasionally, the court allows them to get involved. The Obama Administration did not have to defend DOMA, especially when there are plenty of right-wing groups ready to do it themselves.
Click to expand...

Paul Hogarth: Obama's DOMA Defense Unacceptable

i've noted privately to myself how the white house's appeal THIS WEEK of the MA circuit's broadminded ruling against doma has supplanted its claims of prescription with talk instead of "tradition"

i wouldn't know, i simply observe and point out the controversy, i do believe that jerry brown would act differently as demonstrated by his taking on PROPOSITION 8, duly ratified by direct plebiscite out here on the left coast

"As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. "The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."
Click to expand...

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling | Reuters

all must note obama's doj's activism on these matters, doma, dadt, holder's boys working in direct contradiction of the campaign claptrap

this couldn't come at a worse time

in the last 2 weeks poll after poll has shown THE SAME drastic decline in the president's demographics---hispanics, women, working class whites, youths, independents, undecideds, even african americans according to today's ebony

dips on the order of 20 points, across the board

and now, what experienced pols have persistently perceived---gays

there are no empirics yet on the gay turnout, but the gay and youth votes ARE intricately connected

and look what happened today to the presidential sellout on MTV:

The town hall was expected to be an anything-goes affair – a perception stoked by reports organizers had solicited “lighter questions” like the what-underwear-do-you-wear asked of Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

But the under-30 participants were almost defiantly grave, with tough questions flung at the president on issues ranging from race, genocide in Sudan, immigration, domestic violence, youth unemployment and his decision to appeal a court decision invalidating the military’s policy on gays.

The most heated exchange came when Bridget Todd, a faculty member at Howard University, asked Obama about his “alleged commitment” to gay rights – challenging him to use an executive order to kill “don’t ask don’t yell” immediately, as Harry Truman ended segregation in the military.

“The difference between my position and Harry Truman’s was [that] Congress explicitly passed a law that took away [my] policy power,” said a clearly agitated Obama, moments after Justice Department lawyers announced they would try to delay implementation of a court decision declaring the policy unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

he's dropped TWENTY SEVEN points among college students since 5-09

Just 44 percent of college students approve of the job Obama is doing, while 27 percent disapprove of his job performance, according to a new Associated Press-mtvU poll – down from a 60 percent approval rating [vs 15% disapproval] in May 2009.
Click to expand...

Barack Obama: Economy stokes 'tribal attitude' - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

how do you think he's doing with gays?

gibbs tried to explain away the kids' sour mood by referencing our tuff economic times

politico countered with, "but few of the questions were about the economy, most were about social issues or politics"

i really am sorry to point these things out, i know how much pain they bring to some of you, i sympathize

but you really need to know, knowledge empowers

take care, stay up
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I disagree with all judges that defy the will of the people..........We have 3 separate branches of government in this country...........If you don't like that move to China or Cuba...........They only have one............
Click to expand...

Dude, sorry - but your statement alone reflects a deep misunderstanding of the 3 branches of government. The purpose of the judiciary is to be ABOVE the will of the people and to prevent mob mentality and the tyranny of the majority. If you believe in rights for all, then you have to have a check on "the will of the people".

Let's say I got a majority to vote for the negation of the marriages of all Naval veterans and a judge called that unconstitutional. Is that "judicial activism"?

I don't see anything that directly addresses such a thing in the Constitution, but I'd be willing to bet you'd want to fight for your rights, including the use of the federal courts (who are their for those who feel the law is an infringement upon their Constitutional rights).
 
Redress said:
Do you not understand how the judicial branch works? Until a case comes to the judicial system, the judge cannot rule.
Click to expand...

So no one thought it was a problem since the Clinton Admin? Strange.
 
American said:
So no one thought it was a problem since the Clinton Admin? Strange.
Click to expand...

Not true either. I forget when the original case was files, but it was quite a few years ago.
 
Navy Pride said:
I disagree with all judges that defy the will of the people..........We have 3 separate branches of government in this country...........If you don't like that move to China or Cuba...........They only have one............
Click to expand...

The people support a repeal of DADT by a large margin, which means this judge was upholding the will of the people.
Cuba awaits you, my will-of-the-people hating friend.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I disagree with all judges that defy the will of the people..........We have 3 separate branches of government in this country...........If you don't like that move to China or Cuba...........They only have one............
Click to expand...

Can you not see the total lack of logic in your post? Yes, Navy....we DO have 3 separate branches of government....the judicial branch is designed to be such that it is not beholden the the whim and will of the people.
 
Singularity said:
Bad move by the Obama Administration. Given the fervent support for it's repeal by a large number of his base, one would expect Obama to expedite the process. Instead, he's dragging his feet on the issue.
Click to expand...

He's not dragging his feet. He made the correct political and strategic move. I have told people over and over that DADT is on its way out and that President Obama is not going to rock the military boat. I warned people that he needs the military support and I have been met with "nu-uh" and misunderstading because people are quite simply ignorant of the issue. He recognizes the need to keep the military support on his side and he has given the military unofficial notice about the end of DADT. This is why he has given the military time to complete its study on how best to institute open gays in the fighting force. By allowing the military to complete its study, he is keeping the military support while meeting his agenda to end the burdenous policy.

I grow tired of people defying what I tell them.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Yep just like the WHITES should have been the ones to decide if Blacks could join.
Click to expand...

Well......it was "WHITES" that decided that blacks should join. You may need to find a better stage to base your argunment on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom