October 22, 2010

‎"Did I mention I'm fighting against your constitutional rights in court?"



(The quote that is the post title was written by my son Chris as he posted this video on Facebook.)

105 comments:

Fen said...

Bullying bad?

How about you lead by example, DHOTUS.

c3 said...

"All of us get to enjoy the freedom to pursue our own version of happiness"


WTF.

So a middle-aged guy collecting gigabytes of naked kids having sex with other kids is just pursuing "his own version of happiness".

Who wrote these lines for the POTUS? Did anyone stop and consider the full ramifications of that line?

GMay said...

"Did I mention I'm fighting against your constitutional rights in court?"

Could someone please point me to where the rights are enshrined re: DADT?

Fen said...

Right under the part that says "separation of church and state"

edutcher said...

"Things will get better", another excuse for the Feds to stick their noses in everyone's business.

PS Nice little riff on his, "He doesn't look like all the Presidents on the dollar bills", speech, Ann.

Ann Althouse said...

"Could someone please point me to where the rights are enshrined re: DADT?"

Someone has pointed it out: Judge Virginia Philips. You're welcome to read her opinion, which the Obama administration is fighting to have reversed. He doesn't have to do that. He is choosing to do that. If you think he is choosing to do that because he shares your idea about how to interpret the Constitution, I don't know where to tell you to start reading.

Fen said...

Dear Mr. President.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller has demonstrated she'll make a former employee's medical history public.

Isn't that bullying? Isn't that a HIPPA violation? Shouldn't you fire her? Or at least revoke NPR's federal funding [both direct and indirect]

Or is does admonition against bullying only apply to people you disagree with?

Fen said...

And as I said down the page, I think this was more about depression than bullying.

Trooper York said...

I think you guys need to be fair. The President knows a lot about being bullied. Didn't you see the video he made with Michelle the other day?

GMay said...

AA said: "Someone has pointed it out: Judge Virginia Philips. You're welcome to read her opinion..."

Could you give me a synopsis or break it down for me? You know, me not being a lawyer and all, I tend to defer to experts I respect. I've just got my layman's reading of the Constitution and my military experience to go off of here.

Is the judge going to be a champion for free speech in the military now, or just the freedom of expression certain groups have the power to lobby for?

"If you think he is choosing to do that because he shares your idea about how to interpret the Constitution, I don't know where to tell you to start reading."

If you think I was thinking that, I'm not sure where to tell you to stop thinking.

lemondog said...

....that we treat eveybody with respect........

**snort** Does that EVEN include......bitter-clingers an...an... Teabaggers an..an.....sceered 'mericans not thinking clearly......an.... an....

t-man said...

After you finish that synopsis, Prof., could you paint my house?

The Drill SGT said...

"‎"Did I mention I'm fighting against your constitutional rights in court?""

And here I thought that the executive branch had a responsibilty to defend the laws of the land, pass by Congress and signed the President when those laws are challenged in court.

silly me :)

rcocean said...

Maybe Obama thinks DADT should be gotten rid of, but also thinks there is no constitutional basis for doing so. Maybe, he actually thinks Congress and the POTUS should resolve the matter and not Grandma Philips.

And maybe we should get the SCOUTS to hear this case, given how important it is.

Hagar said...

We all begin with all the genes necessary to be of either sex; then after about 6 weeks, if there is a Y chromosome present, some gene is turned on, which causes some chemicals to be produced that turns on other genes, and so on, and if all goes well, a male of the species will be born. If there are 2 X's and no Y, the sequence is slightly different, and, if all goes well, a female of the species will be born.
It's a Rube Goldberg process, and it is remarkable that it works as well as it generally does, but it allows for quite a graduated variation in end results.

So, I do not think that an individual can help being what he or she is with regard to sexual orientation, but that does not excuse inappropriate behavior. There really is no reason why strangers should know which way you lean, whatever that way may be.

In the current discussion, there is way too much conflating of inborn conditions, which cannot be helped, with overt behavior, which certainly is an individual responsibility.

GMay said...

t-man: "After you finish that synopsis, Prof., could you paint my house?"

My bad for looking for explanations of opinions. That shit must be fucking haaaard, huh?

Abraham said...

While I grant that Pres. Obama feels deeply about the message he is trying to send, and putting DADT policy aside, two things disturbed me: 1) The "you will...you will....you will...you will...." list of imperatives he was imposing on those he was counseling and 2) the fact I don't want the president of the United States counseling us, at all, or at least in this manner. As to the former, well, maybe "you will", but maybe you won't and maybe you'll do something quite different, etc...(again back to the freedom thing) and as for the later, we need a President. Commander in Chief. Enforcer of laws. Not one more Dr. Phil. Which gets us back to the DADT, though I thought I was putting it aside.

PatCA said...

I knew a girl in high school who took 10 aspirin after her boyfriend broke up with her. She got very sick and had to go to the ER.

I demand that the president address boys who break up with girls for no damn good reason!

Abraham said...

latter

c3 said...

Teen suicide has touched me very personally. While I appreciate anyone's, including the President's, concern for the issue, I do bristle at the suggestion that one teen's issues are more important than another's.

sunsong said...

With Hillary and now Obama jumping on the bandwagon - it seems to me that all this means is that it is now good politics to make an "it gets better" vid.

MInTheGap said...

And here I thought entering the military was all about setting aside some rights in order to serve the country. Rights like speaking out against the Commander in Chief/Superior Officers, ability to go wherever you want whenever you want, and other things that private citizens can do that the military cannot.

Let alone the fact that they have a separate set of judicial process.

All I'm saying is that simply because a judge may claim that there is a right to be open about a sexual preference in the military, that may not mean that it's in the best interest of the military to have such a policy.

I mean, what's next, will judges everywhere start ruling whether or not certain military maneuvers are appropriate? Battalion composition? Overturning women in combat? Consultation on strategy?

Ben said...

And just who is Judge Virginia Phillips? On the recommendation of U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstien and Barbara Boxer, nominated to the Court by President Bill Clinton.

I’m sure that she is a model of judicial constraint. What’s more, I’m sure that she does not hold the opinion that the Constitution is a living document. Constantly changing for the stated liberal purpose of getting their agenda crammed down our throats.

hombre said...

As a nation we're founded on the belief that all of us are equal....

I thought it was that we're all "created" equal. As usual, the President is missing something.

BarryD said...

Is the judge going to be a champion for free speech in the military now, or just the freedom of expression certain groups have the power to lobby for?

You do know that's a silly question, right? :-)

Geoff Matthews said...

MintheGap,

Lawyers have already prevented the military from making attacks.

John said...

I know a cople of us have asked it more than once but we never seem to get an answer:

How does overturning DADT benefit gays?

DADT is what allows gays to serve.

It is the underlying law that prevents them. Has that law been overturned? Would it be repealed under any of the schemes to get rid of DADT?

Bueller...?
Bueller...?

John Henry

Kelly said...

GMay said...
"Could someone please point me to where the rights are enshrined re: DADT?"

Fen said...
"Right under the part that says 'separation of church and state'"

And where does it say "separation of church and state?" Hint: Not in the Constitution. Geez, Fen, have you ever read it?

Besides, DADT has nothing to do with church and state. It has to do with Bill Clinton and state.

Actually, the military has wide latitude to set its own standards upon which to accept or reject people who want to serve. Do I think DADT is a bad policy? Yes. Do I think LGBT people should be excluded from serving if otherwise qualified? No. But Fen's comment is still stupid.

DaveW said...

Kelly, Fen was being facetious.

Abraham said...

"it gets better"!!! Sometimes it doesn't. It gets worse too. Or stays about the same. Then what? And even granting it "gets better" then, as Potus commands, "you'll" do this and this and be like this and this and not like that.... I don't like the narrowness, the assuredness, of his message. Perhaps I'm wrong but I've always felt that the last thing humans who are dealing with the most difficult of existential problems, even young humans, need is cheerleading and a narrowing of perspective. However such a pep talk may make the counselor feel......

john said...

Why not ask why it is the policy. It is not really because the military is agains gay people. It is the same reason we do not let men and women shower or house together in the military. If they made entire barracks co-ed there would be no issue or make seperate barraks. If your a straight man or women you may not feel comfortable taking a shower, being naked around a person that finds you sexually atractive. Make the military all co-ed no discrimination based on sex, sexuality, nothing everyone eats, sleeps, showers and serves under the banner of equality without predudice.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

WTF!

Why are the President of the United States and the Secretary of State putting out these lame-o videos about bullying.

Don't they have ANYTHING better to turn their attention to?

Alan S. Blue said...

The members of the military already experience substantial curtailments of their first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment rights. What makes this trump the right to free speech?

Blue@9 said...

"And here I thought that the executive branch had a responsibilty to defend the laws of the land, pass by Congress and signed the President when those laws are challenged in court."

No, the Executive Branch traditionally defends laws passed by Congress, but there's nothing in the Constitution that compels him to do so. Obama's excuse for appealing this case is patently dishonest; several Presidents have declined to defend certain laws in court.

hombre said...

Althouse wrote: Someone has pointed out [where the rights are enshrined re: DADT]: Judge Virginia Philips. You're welcome to read her opinion, which the Obama administration is fighting to have reversed. He doesn't have to do that.

I guess I missed con law class that day when my ol' prof taught that one district judge's opinion that a right was "enshrined" in the Constitution made it so.

Additionally, although I tend to be unsympathetic toward the President and his sleazy Attorney General, it seems to me that while not legally required to appeal, he may be ethically compelled to do so if he believes the judge's opinion to be unsound or bad precedent.

Where have I gone wrong here, Professor?

David said...

You're welcome to read her opinion, which the Obama administration is fighting to have reversed. He doesn't have to do that. He is choosing to do that.

He's choosing to appeal the decision until election day 2010. After that, all bets are off.

(If I were choosing to give Obama an assumption of integrity on this issue--which would be contrary to all available evidence--I would say that he would prefer a decision by a circuit court to that of a district court. And that he may, or may not, want to actually win the appeal. And that he may, or may not, know his ass from a Nerf ball.)

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Could someone please point me to where the rights are enshrined re: DADT?"

Someone has pointed it out: Judge Virginia Philips. You're welcome to read her opinion, which the Obama administration is fighting to have reversed. He doesn't have to do that. He is choosing to do that. If you think he is choosing to do that because he shares your idea about how to interpret the Constitution, I don't know where to tell you to start reading.


That's a little dishonest. As you say, it's an opinion, not something spelled out in the Constitution or any of the Amendments. Her opinion is far from the last word on the matter. If her opinion stands through the appeals up the food chain, it will have the weight of law, but it is as capable of being overturned as any other opinion.

I'm thinking not only of Plessy v Ferguson, but also the SCOTUS ban on the death penalty during the Carter years.

David said...

"I guess I missed con law class that day when my ol' prof taught that one district judge's opinion that a right was "enshrined" in the Constitution made it so."

It makes it so for the case before the court, at least.

DaveW said...

Gay people can serve now. They could serve 30 years ago when I served. However, people gay or straight may not act out sexually in the military. It simply isn't done. It isn't how the military works.

Personally I think people that haven't served just don't understand military service. You don't just give up your right to have gay sex in the shower or something. You give up virtually ALL your rights as a citizen and become property of the state.

That basic lack of understanding of military service is what drives a lot of the energy in this argument, or at least so I think. On it's face it's perfectly reasonable. Of course gay people should be able to serve.

But if you watch carefully that's not what is being asked for. What's being asked for is that "openly gay" people be allowed to serve. That's a very important distinction that otherwise smart people are overlooking. And overlooking that distinction is missing something important that's going on here.

The Ghost said...

ah Fen ...

where does the Constitution actually list a seperation of church and state ?

c3 said...

This song should have been playing in the background.

former law student said...

With all due respect to Judge Phillips, the Supreme Court is the only official interpreter of the Constitution in our system.

former law student said...

Obama's excuse for appealing this case is patently dishonest; several Presidents have declined to defend certain laws in court.

Name some laws of equal impact to DADT that other Presidents have declined to defend. My impression is that Presidents have declined to defend only no-brainers.

MathMom said...

Doesn't he have, like, a job?

Gotta say, his cadences and tics are really really getting under my skin.

WV: menes. Obama wants you to know that menes don't mene to be mene, it is just their way of pursuing their own version of happiness.

Blue@9 said...

fls:
With all due respect to Judge Phillips, the Supreme Court is the only official interpreter of the Constitution in our system.

WTF? No, no it's not. It's the final arbiter, but lower courts interpret the Constitution all the time, and those interpretations are also law (until overturned).

edutcher:
As you say, it's an opinion, not something spelled out in the Constitution or any of the Amendments.
Doesn't matter. The judge's "opinion" counts as law until overturned or superceded or whatnot.

hombre said...

David wrote: It makes it so for the case before the court, at least.

And to make it "not so" for that case and others would be why we have appeals. That falls a little short of "enshrined," I think.

hombre said...

ah Fen ...

where does the Constitution actually list a seperation of church and state ?


Unlike Chris Coons, Fen was probably kidding.

former law student said...

The judge's "opinion" counts as law until overturned or superceded or whatnot.

The professor believes Judge Phillip's judgment should not be subject to further review.

Ron Moses said...

Hopefully we won't allow our disdain to carry over to the It Gets Better Project itself, which is an important cause that deserves better than to be associated with this video, much less with our reaction to it. The IGBP has no connection to the White House or any political party.

www.itgetsbetterproject.com

Hagar said...

My personal experience is that exercising your 1st Amendment rights - or any other "rights" for that matter - in the military will lead to extensive training in janitorial services.

Carry it far enough, and you might need that training, since it is hard to get an education or find a good job with an other than honorable discharge!

AllenS said...

That speech Obama gave, was gay.

People commit suicide all the time, for all kinds of different reasons.

This has nothing, nothing to do with DADT or DOMA.

Fuck off, Obama.

dbp said...

I give Obama some benefit of the doubt here: He may well think DADT is unconstitutional and he has certainly said he thinks it is a bad law. Maybe he thinks it would be better for the case to remain alive while congress fixes it. (This would prevent any legitimacy of the law issues) Either way, it is far better for the law to be overturned by the Supreme Court than some district judge.

former law student said...

Mr. Moses, I agree.

Unless you're gay or -- maybe -- have a close family member or friend who is, I don't see how your personal experience will help any gay youth.

PatCA said...

Well said, DaveW.

Moneyrunner said...

In the Virginian Pilot today we learn that "Navy ship leader ousted after 'unduly familiar relationship'"

Apparently the highest ranking enlisted sailor on the Norfolk, VA Navy ship New York was "...relieved of duty for carrying on an "unduly familiar relationship" with a female crew member, the Navy said." Did I mention that the Chief was male?

If only he were in a committed relationship with a person of the same sex, he would have a case that a law professor would be happy to take.

former law student said...

What's being asked for is that "openly gay" people be allowed to serve. That's a very important distinction that otherwise smart people are overlooking.

There are two kinds of being openly gay that have been discussed here. One is the guy whose family pictures include his boyfriend where other guys pictures include their girlfriends. And the other guy wants to lounge around wearing assless chaps. The military must be able to draw a line between the "out" gay and the "flaming" gay.

Joe said...

The problem with the assertions Obama makes about bullying is he doesn't define what it is. For edge cases, sure, we know it when we see it, but there's a vast gray area where things aren't so clear. This is another area where an ill defined behavior is labeled "evil" and then those in power start lumping every behavior they don't like or find personally inconvenient into that category.

Unfortunately, this is yet another step in making Americans scared of their own shadows.

(I can't help but remember my oldest daughter's solution to a kid seriously teasing and harassing her in seventh grade--she told him to stop it or she'd kick him the balls. He didn't stop, she kicked him in the balls. Put an end to that problem immediately.

And, BTW, in every high school most everyone knows who the bullies are and they are ultimately being protected by the Obamas of the world who declare that every child has a right to an education. Kick these kids out of school and I guarantee Obama and his ilk will be whining about how we are unfair to the disadvantaged and so on.)

El Pollo Real said...

Hippies-at-heart and most people with San Francisco values have never liked the military. It has little to do with being gay, and predates SF becoming a gay mecca. I thought that was a given? Here, this song and its history proves it: Link

The people shouting the loudest have the least skin in the game.

El Pollo Real said...

wv = "actup" LOL- you can't make this shit up!

El Pollo Real said...

The military must be able to draw a line between the "out" gay and the "flaming" gay.

I suspect you'll get an argument on that one (from some of the bullies around here--DTL?) and they will base it on the view that the military must be open and tolerant just like society is. But those people are basically anti-military and what it stands for.

Fen said...

Yah, I guess I should have included sarcasm tags....

Whats eveb worse that the "opinion" of the judge is that it sets a dangerous precedent: can a judge not countermand lawful military orders?

Revenant said...

With all due respect to Judge Phillips, the Supreme Court is the only official interpreter of the Constitution in our system.

Which country's legal system are you a former student *of*?

submandave said...

FLS: wrt "open" vs "flaming," one very real potential that I see as almost a guaranteed certainty is that there will be "flamers" intentionally pushing the system to make a political/social point. Likewise, I believe without clear direction (and there won't be) there will be reticence on behalf of leadership to equitibly deal with inappropriate homosexual relationships as they do with inappropriate heterosexual relationships to avoid being perceived as or accused of being anti-gay. The damage to morale due to special treatment may well be greater than due to actual opposition to open members. Although it's not PC to speak of it openly, ask any male sailor about female members intentionally getting pregnant to avoid deployment and leaving the division short of manning and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

rhhardin said...

A new Constitutional right has been discovered.

Persuading the majority might be a more civil strategy in this campaign.

Beau said...

You're welcome to read her opinion, which the Obama administration is fighting to have reversed. He doesn't have to do that. He is choosing to do that.

That in a nutshell is absolutely stunning. I thought he was a little more politically astute than to make this choice. What on earth can his reason be for doing so? - especially in light of his campaign position.

I'm completely not getting it. I give up trying to understand anything about this guy and his decisions...How completely tone deaf that he would then choose to participate in the anti-bullying videos. If nothing else I would have thought that his wife would bitch slapped the idea out of his head in one of those 'WTF, Honey' moments to save you from looking like an utter Dick.

holdfast said...

Mr. Blue:

Don't forget that the 3rd Amendment actually curtails their ability to get a warm, comfy night's rest.

KS said...

"And every day, it gets better."

Does America really get better every day? I'm hoping that it will get better on November 2.

Meanwhile, the president and Hillary should leave this to Adam Lambert et al.

Jum said...

*sigh* Yet another instance of the dimunition of the prestige, dignity and gravitas of the office of the presidency, willingly accomplished by its current occupant.

And here I thought Jimmy Carter was a unique aberration....

Mick said...

The military is not a "democracy". They can choose or not choose certain people to serve based on the criteria of "Military readiness". Homosexual sexual behavior is already banned, so they can avoid having Homosexuals in the military, and risk a lot of money training them only to have them be thrown out for engaging in sexual acts that are not allowed. DUH.

USCMJ Article 125:

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles/925-article-125-sodomy

George said...

----Personally I think people that haven't served just don't understand military service. You don't just give up your right to have gay sex in the shower or something. You give up virtually ALL your rights as a citizen and become property of the state. ----

For example, a soldier can be charged and prosecuted for injuring himself/herself.

Mick said...

DADT was a policy that allowed gays to serve. Take it away, and the military can ask and expect to be told, and then throw them out.

JAL said...

Well I am sososo relieved that the NBP issue at the polling place last election is *finally* going to be dealt with by our fabulously just and reasoned DoJ.

I mean -- they just got their marching orders from POTUS himself when he told us on how bullying is bad and bullies can be dealt when we go to people we trust and they will deal with it.

Right?

wv demonari
(wv is on a roll)

RebeccaH said...

I saw this on TV, and of course Obama had to turn it into being about him: "I don't know what it's like to be bullied for being gay, but I do know what it's like to feel like you don't belong..."

The second thing that struck me was the sheer hypocrisy of reaching out to young gay people while fighting for DADT in court. Does this man live in a parallel universe, or what?

Skyler said...

I seem to recall the US Supreme Court upholding the exclusion of homosexuals in the military. It would seem that Judge Phillips has ignored what has already been rued on.

Skyler said...

Blue wrote: WTF? No, no it's not. It's the final arbiter, but lower courts interpret the Constitution all the time, and those interpretations are also law (until overturned).

I think the people are supposed to be the final arbiters. They alone can amend the Constitution. The Courts are not supposed to be able to amend it, only apply it.

Skyler said...

My point is that the court has the "final" say only until they decide they want another "final" say.

And the hubris of our judiciary is such that I have little doubt that even if there were a Constitutional Amendment that disagreed with them, such as banning homosexuals from the military or outlawing abortion, or whatever, the Courts would still find a way to inflict their whims on our laws.

stevenehrbar said...

And here I thought that the executive branch had a responsibilty to defend the laws of the land, pass by Congress and signed the President when those laws are challenged in court.

And they did, and the law was found unconstitutional. Next?

With all due respect to Judge Phillips, the Supreme Court is the only official interpreter of the Constitution in our system.

An Article III court is an Article III court is an Article III court. The judicial power is vested in all of them, with no special "The SC is the only one that gets to interpret the Constitution" provision.

el polacko said...

i'm not comfortable with politicians jumping in on this "it gets better" campaign. when dan savage started it, it was about gay people sharing their own life experiences with gay youth who, due to brutal bullying, feel that there is no future for them.
barack's jumping in is particularly disturbing, considering that his administration is actively fighting, at every turn, AGAINST gay equality in the courts. the man cynically uses the gay community for votes and donations while stabbing them in the back.
i wish that the politicians would stick to assuring equality under the law and leave the emotional appeals to the people who know from which they speak.

former law student said...

The judicial power is vested in all of them, with no special "The SC is the only one that gets to interpret the Constitution" provision.


When I took ConLaw, all the cases cited were from the Supreme Court. Have things changed?

AST said...

Why bother with the teleprompter? Real heartbreak doesn't need a teleprompter. And does he really think that we need him to tell us how evil it is to drive someone to suicide?

The people who need to sit their kids down and teach them about the evil of bullying and namecalling are most likely never going to see this clip. Personally, I don't think we need a minister in chief.

There is no right to be gay or for gays to serve in the military. Rights don't just pop into existence because societal mores change. If that were so, we wouldn't have needed the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights laws. It's not valid to assert new rights simply by analogy to other minorities. Abortion and gay marriage are hardly at the point of acceptance that the courts should intervene to impose a legal solution to what are really political issues. In doing so, they have ceased to be judicial and become tyrannical.

Blue@9 said...

The judge's "opinion" counts as law until overturned or superceded or whatnot.

The professor believes Judge Phillip's judgment should not be subject to further review.


Well, so do I.

Fen said...

Why?

Blue@9 said...

The judicial power is vested in all of them, with no special "The SC is the only one that gets to interpret the Constitution" provision.


When I took ConLaw, all the cases cited were from the Supreme Court. Have things changed?


Are Supreme Court cases the only federal court cases that base decisions on the Constition? No. Do all lower court cases involving the U.S. Constitution go to the Supreme Court for review? No.

There's a huge body of Federal case law, much of it dealing with and interpreting the Constitution, and only a very tiny smidgen of those cases were granted certiorari. Your relating your experiences in ConLaw is... bizarre. Were you under the impression that the only laws in existence were the ones you covered in class?

Blue@9 said...

Why?

It's not a Constitutional judgment: I have no idea if the district court decision is solidly reasoned or not with respect to the Constitutional issues.

It's just a matter of personal belief. I don't think discrimination against homosexuals has any place in any place in our society.

Will it be difficult to integrate "out" gays into military? Possibly, but it's not impossible and it could probably be done without jeopardizing military effectiveness. I know this is a cliched example, but integrating blacks into the military was also considered risky and difficult. I know there's a difference because race is a protected status under the Constitution while sexual orientation is not, but I really don't care. I don't think the Constitution should be seen as an upper limit on our decency as a society.

Blue@9 said...

It's just a matter of personal belief.

I should have said that it's a matter of personal and political belief.

bagoh20 said...

The bully pulpit speaks against bullying, and you better listen.

bagoh20 said...

Bullying is one of the natural challenges that humans encounter as part of a social group. It's true of all animals who live in social groups. A Darwinian filter, nothing more. "Teach your children well, Their father's hell did slowly go by."

Peter said...

Blue@9 the military was integrated in 1948, by order of President ple being killed in Viet nam because of racial strife within units. Now we happen to be fighting on more than two fronts against an unkown, but significant percentage of the world's billion and a half Muslims.

As a veteran I just flat assed resent the hell of of a Judge whose idea of Service to the country is sending a clerk out for coffee to tell the Military what to do. When did this happen? The military has always had it's own courts. It worked for two hundred and thirty three years but now, suddenly a bunch of lawyer pukes who mostly wouldn't last the first month of Boot Camp want to change the rules because it's just not FAAAAIIIR, Daddy!

Oaky, fine. Don't cry when the kids y'all oh so smart people have never given a fuck about quit enlisting. That's what is going to happen.

Blue@9 said...

Oaky, fine. Don't cry when the kids y'all oh so smart people have never given a fuck about quit enlisting. That's what is going to happen.

Well, I very much doubt that many will waver in their patriotism or service because of gay people.

CharlyCigar said...

Produced in front of a green screen - Interesting that POTUS is seen slighty to the left in this video. Some sort of subliminal message?

Robert Cook said...

"There really is no reason why strangers should know which way you lean, whatever that way may be."

So you would support a prohibition against any military personnel revealing to anyone that they are married, or have kids, or sisters- or brothers- or parents-in-law, etc., because such information, even a wedding band or family photos, would tell everyone around you "which way you lean."

In the civilian world, perhaps we should socially ostracize men and women we see walking in public hand in hand, or with children in tow, or who are overheard addressing each other as "dear" or "sweetheart," etc., because it offends those of us who don't want to know "which way these people lean" or imagine what they do in bed.

When our colleagues at work start to tell us what they did over the weekend with their wives or husbands, we should file complaints with our HR departments that these people are pushing information about their private sexual orientation on us without our having asked for it.

Jeebus! This is not about allowing gays to parade around in assless chaps, in the military or anywhere else...it's about not treating them any differently than anyone else even if we know they're gay. It's very natural for all of us to speak to our non-intimate acquaintances--work colleagues, most commonly--of our personal lives in ways that reveal our sexual orientation...if we're straight--e.g., "I went to the movies with my girlfriend this weekend," or "My husband and I had a barbecue yesterday," or "My wife/husband is such a dope...do you know what he/she did/said yesterday?"

Everything we say about ourselves and much of what we do publicly tells the world who we are sexually. Gays who wish to avoid ostracism or bullying or losing their jobs must lie or be careful to say nothing that might reveal who they are...and even then, it's often obvious, and they face repercussions even when they haven't thrown "which way they lean" into anybody's face.

Robert Cook said...

"As a veteran I just flat assed resent the hell of of a Judge whose idea of Service to the country is sending a clerk out for coffee to tell the Military what to do. When did this happen? The military has always had it's own courts."

I'm not sure what you mean with your reference to a "clerk going out for coffee," but the military is not a separate branch of government and does not have operational autonomy...the military has always been under control of the civilian government.

B Dubya said...

I spent a lot of years riding the 400 foot sewer pipes known to most of you as nuclear submarines, in a time when the USSR really was trying to figure out how to kill you all without that second strike menance being in the way.
There were gay men abooard all of the ships I served on. I didn't hve to ask, and they didn't have to tell. In the interests of maintaining good military discipline, these men were very careful to never act on their sexuality while on the ship. Submarine crews are tight. Unitary. If you act out of the norms accepted by the crew, you cannot stay (that applies to anyone on board, with the possible exception of the skipper, who answers to a higher authority). To be on a ship at sea, submerged for months at a time, with 140 men who have taken it into their heads that you don't belong is going to make your previous life seem like a long holiday at the beach.
What these men did or do on the beach, by the way, if of absolutely no concern of mine. I cared only for their performance on the boat, where we all had to perform just to keep from getting us all killed every stinking day.
In small units, in the Corps or in the Army, the cohesion is even more important and the affects on discipline even more dangerous. Men and women in combat units will let you die, if they don't count you as one of theirs. Entire units can die as a result of that kind of breakdown.
The military is nothing like any of you who have never served imagine it to be. Once in the military, you are always subject to military authority and discipline and , essentially, the rights you once enjoyed as a private citizen are no longer yours. In a purely voluntary military, the individual who enlists or takes a commision understands that right out of the chute.
In essense, I, the guy serving next to you, am not interested in your particular history of depravity or your predilictions for same. I want to know that you can be counted on to do your f-ing job.
Another take. Where in civil or criminal law does it established that if you refuse to go into harms way, as ordered by proper authority, and you refuse, or run away, or injure yourself, that you can be prosecuted for cowardice in the face of the enemy and, if convicted, put to death?
Answer, relative to the priate citizen, nowhere. For the military member, that is peppered throughout the UCMJ and the various Service regs.

The troops in the foxhole don't much give a damn what some far left liberal Clinton appointee thinks.

Robert Cook said...

"So a middle-aged guy collecting gigabytes of naked kids having sex with other kids is just pursuing 'his own version of happiness'."

He may be, but "his version of happiness" is illegal and causes harm to children, who are non-consenting non-adults. Children lack adult understanding and the autonomy of mind and body to resist the physical force and/or psychological coercion employed against them by adults who wish to abuse them.

There is no equivalency between sexual abuse of children and adult sexual relationships. We cherish and champion heterosexual marriage but this does not make it right for a 20 year old man to engage in sexual behavior with a 10 year old girl, or for him to force or manipulate little girls and boys to behave sexually with each other.

Isn't this stuff fucking obvious?

Jason (the commenter) said...

DaveW: However, people gay or straight may not act out sexually in the military. It simply isn't done. It isn't how the military works.

That has nothing to do with the DADT repeal. Under DADT gays were not allowed to get married, go on dates, even talk to anyone who was gay either in person or through emails. You had to stay in the closet 100%, it wasn't just the military you couldn't tell, but anyone else, even family members.

Some people seem to be of the opinion that gays are going to be hurt by the repeal of DADT. Normally they would be, but not when it is done by a judge in this manner. Because this case is creating a legal precedent which all other laws will have to follow.

No one thought about the law this way before, now they have.

jr565 said...

DaveW wrote:
Gay people can serve now. They could serve 30 years ago when I served. However, people gay or straight may not act out sexually in the military. It simply isn't done. It isn't how the military works.

Isn't that one of the problems. Namely that gays define themselves sexually? You might say that heteros do, but in reality they don't. They simply are. There is no heterosexual movement to define someone based on their sex ("I'm here, I'm straight, better get used to the idea!").
So what does it mean to serve openly as gay in the military when you define yourself emotionally by who you have sex with.
Since there is not supposed to be sex in the military anwyay, hetero OR gay, what sort of accomodations does the military have to afford openly gay people to allow them to be gay.
Whereas DADT simply says, we don't want to have sex be an issue in the military,so shut up about it and we won't ask you about it. If you get caught, like a heterosexual person would as well, behaving in innapropriate behavior you will be drummed out of the military so don't behave in the behavior or don't get caught. WHy do gays HAVE to serve as gays?
DADT is akin to a color blind society where sexuality is not an issue (because no can ask about it or tell about it), and yet serving openly as a gay person means that sexuality HAS to become prominant in the conversation. Why?
If the military were FIght Club the first and second rule would be not to talk about Fight Club. If you want to be in the military, leave your sexual baggage at the door. Screw on your own time, and abide by the rules. And don't talk about it since by not talking about it you are afforded the opportunity to serve.
It's not about gays predilections. It's about serving your country, with your pants zipped up. If gays can control their restraint and keep their pants zipped up (which I assume they can) then simply don't bring gayness into the equation while serving.
There is no position in the military that demands you be straight or queer, so leave that part of you at the door while you serve, and be yourself on your own time (which is kind of what the military wants from you anyway, whether you are straight, gay or otherwise).

AllenS said...

Where are you getting your figures from, Jason? From personal experience in the military?

Did you know that officers and senior NCOs are prohibited from having sex with privates?

Jason (the commenter) said...

AllenS: Did you know that officers and senior NCOs are prohibited from having sex with privates?

That has NOTHING to do with the DADT repeal. DADT prohibited relations with civilians. That was what was pertinent to the lawsuit.

Fen said...

Because this case is creating a legal precedent which all other laws will have to follow.

Yes, now a judge in Los Angeles can countermand the lawful orders of a Batallion CO in Fallujah

Asiri said...

zxcv

Asiri said...

Gmay, Fen, Ann: DADT rights are not stated in the constitution. Hetero, no homosexual rights are in the constitution or spelled out in the bill of rights. Marriage between anything is not spelled out in the billl of rights. J. Virginia Phillips decision is an interpretation -- just as the Warren Court intpreted the first amendment to mean "separation of church and state." Phillips' decision in short is much like "Yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause." If you want to get to the letter of the law -- read me -- letter of the law, the answer is "No." IMHO the "closest" right to privacy derived from the 4th Amendment the "right to be secure..." everything, home, papers, etc, " from whence is derived the right to privacy, such privacy is voided upon that same person's open publication.

AllenS said...

Jason,

That's pure bullshit. Once you're off post, you can do just about anything you want. Provided that it's legal. Had you spent any time in the military, you would know that. Homosexuality isn't illegal.

Jason (the commenter) said...

AllenS : Once you're off post, you can do just about anything you want. Provided that it's legal.

Not if you're gay. That is specifically what DADT says, and that is what the judge ruled against.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Fen :Yes, now a judge in Los Angeles can countermand the lawful orders of a Batallion CO in Fallujah

They're not lawful if they're against the law.

former law student said...

There's a huge body of Federal case law, much of it dealing with and interpreting the Constitution, and only a very tiny smidgen of those cases were granted certiorari.

Name one Constitutional interpretation case of first impression that was settled at the district court level -- should be easy for you to pick one out from the "huge body" of such.


Your relating your experiences in ConLaw is... bizarre. Were you under the impression that the only laws in existence were the ones you covered in class?

Cases that defined the scope of our Constitutional rights, yes.

Again, yYu're free to cite a counter-example. Just one will do. Something from the F. Supp.