November 12, 2010

The Supreme Court leaves Don't Ask Don't Tell in place — with Kagan not participating.

The 9th Circuit stay on the order ending DADT will keep the policy in effect pending appeal. There were no dissenting opinions, and, most interestingly Justice Kagan did not participate:
While it was not a surprise that Justice Kagan had opted not to take part in the order, that was nevertheless a significant development.  It raised the prospect that, when the constitutional challenge reached the Supreme Court, the Justices might split 4-4 on it; that is always a risk when only eight Justices are taking part and the issue is a deeply controversial one.  Should the Ninth Circuit Court upheld [sic] the policy, that result would simply be affirmed; without an opinion, if the Justices were actually to divide 4-4 in reaction to it....

If it should turn out that Congress does not repeal the policy, despite the requests by President Obama and some of the Pentagon’s top civilian and uniformed officers, the constitutional challenge in the Log Cabin Republicans’ case would be the only potential way to end the policy, at least for several more years.

70 comments:

Penny said...

And Abraham Lincoln looks in from his own little log cabin in the sky...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Penny: And Abraham Lincoln looks in from his own little log cabin in the sky...

Please. Abraham Lincoln was all for segregation. If he ever did look, he stopped looking long ago.

Trooper York said...

Yeah but Honest Abe played for your team Jason.

Just ask his good buddy Johsua Speed.

Trooper York said...

And Mary Todd's nickname?

Liza Minelli. Just sayn'

Trooper York said...

Oh and one more thing.

RELEASE THE KAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lem said...

It pains me but I think I have to give credit to the president for trying to get it right..

Obama.. at least from what I can make out.. doesn't want the outcome to be desired in the courts.

He wants a vote in the congress.. which is as it should be.. in my opinion.

Lem said...

Although if I remember correctly the whole DADT fiasco was the braintrust of the president and the joint chiefs.. couldn't he as commander in chief just undo what Bill Clinton did.. do whatever..

Has DADT been enshrined into law?

I wonder what Powell says now.

Lem said...

oops

that should have read decided - not desired.. sorry.

Lem said...

although if you think about it.. the Supreme decisions mirror their own desires many times.. so I wasn't that far off.

Chase said...

Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.

Women's right to have the government not interfere with their right to vote? Constitutional Amendment. VOTED into being.

Bill of Rights? Voted on (ratified).


So please everyone - stop the shit about rights unless they are spelled out in the Constitution.

And stop this so called Constitutional right to same sex marriage until it's voted on and passed.

Anything else is unAmerican.

Chase said...

and the same with DADT. Obama got this one right.

traditionalguy said...

Don't ask Kagan and she won't tell you that she is a lesbian.

Palladian said...

And so the pussies in the military are protected from the scary gays for a little while longer.

And Chase, look up the concept of negative rights and perhaps the word "inalienable" before you start calling people un-American, pussy.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.

Except freedom of speech is already enshrined in the Bill of Rights. And DADT is a freedom of speech issue.

Chase said...

palladian,

the Supreme Court rules correctly when it cites an actual Constitutional law, not the preamble and it's beautiful but unenumerated language.

I may have the right to happiness, bu the Supreme Court doesn't rule that I am owed a plane ticket to Italy for free from the government.

Many may want same sex marriage , but until such a time as it is codified in the Constitution - an amendment - or voted on by the people in their states - tough shit and yes, and the effort and desire to find a result by any other path is unAmerican.

We don't have slavery today because we have a 13th Amendment. Which was VOTED on.

We have problems - people killed - with the unvoted on abortion Court decision in this country for 37 years. Why - because it was not voted on.

And you think a Court imposing same sex marriage on the people of this nation will go any easier?

------------------------

palladian,
generally there is no other commenter in the blogosphere I have ever respected more.
But when your emotion cause you to call my family members who serve in United State Marines, Navy and Army protecting your "life, liberty, and happiness" and rights "pussies" . . .

I lost all respect for you man. You used to be better than that.

Chase said...

sorry Jason, it's not JUST a Freedom of speech issue.

It's a military readiness issue.

Chase said...

Just what the hell do you think the lawsuits against Obamacare's efforts to screw us all by inserting shit into the Commerce Clause that isn't there is all about?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: It's a military readiness issue.

The government already proved that DADT hurts military readiness, that's how they lost this case in the first place!

Jason said...

The government has done no such thing. What kind of crap are you smoking?

If it hurts readiness, convince the service chiefs of the military and their sergeants major/senior chiefs.

You haven't made the case yet.

So don't pretend you have.

Chase said...

They lost A case before a single judge on a matter of utmost importance to every citizen of the United States of America.

Let's see how that plays out shall we?

David said...

"If it should turn out that Congress does not repeal the policy, despite the requests by President Obama and some of the Pentagon’s top civilian and uniformed officers . . . "

Request? Who the hell knows what Obama really thinks about the issue?

And "some of" the Pentagon's top civilian and military officers don't agree with some other top officers.

A total Goddamn mess.

I blame Clinton.

And George Bush.

And the gays.

And the straights.

And Harry Truman.

I even blame Lincoln. What a pussy he was.

garage mahal said...

If a service member's "readiness" is effected by knowing a gay person is serving in the same military, well he ain't much of a soldier to begin with. I would rather have a soldier not effected by that serving. Seems pretty insecure to me.

Chase said...

garage, you have the right to that opinion and the right to work to make it the law of the land.

Thank you for doing so in a respectful way.

Hagar said...

And if they remove Don't Ask, Don't Tell we go back to asking and telling in accordance with the law as it was, and the gays are out on their ears when discovered.

Cedarford said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Chase: Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.

Except freedom of speech is already enshrined in the Bill of Rights. And DADT is a freedom of speech issue
=====================
That's inane. The military is a different organization than civilians think. Corporations can restrict your "free speech" while you are engaging in work, the military can do it 24/7 because you are considered "theirs" till the day you get out. Some civilian organizations have rules for certain employees that go past a 9 to 5 limit - they are in terms of employment. A pro baseball player can be cut if he discredits the game away from the field, gambles on it, gets caught with a 15 year old groupie...etc.

So you can't run around in the military screaming "I hate niggers, I hate white people" even off-duty as a serviceman.
Similarly, you can't prance around saying "I'm gay, I'm gay! I'm a queer little daffodil!"

Free speech my ass.

Jason said...

Garage,

Maybe you don't know a damn thing about what makes a good soldier.

Lem said...

Chase I dont think Palladian meant any serious disparagement towards our military..

He was just using a verbose colorful illustration reflecting his (I assume) frustration in the matter.

DADT is like a hot potato getting tossed around while the real lives of the very real people it affects remain in some sort of limbo.

The sooner they decide the inevitable (gays will serve) the better.

Cedarford said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Chase: It's a military readiness issue.

The government already proved that DADT hurts military readiness, that's how they lost this case in the first place!

===================
The government has not done that. You are spouting shit. The heads of the service branches say - " not yet - bringing gays in would hurt our readiness and good order and discipline".

All you have is government saying, "yes, hypothetically, not recruiting gays, handicapped people, sex offenders, felons, the really stupid" - does lower the numbers in the recruitment pool available.
It might have an impact if most pilot candidates were sex offenders, low-IQ people could be great Army mess cooks with training, and the military is unable to find Arab linguists outside the ones that were gay and were found out because they were trolling for boys at two Arizona high schools and an big arcade area.

Lem said...

Its ironic that by putting Kagan in, opening the possibility of a 4 to 4 tie, Obama may have inadvertently delayed the desired outcome.

I don't know whether DADT is in Boehner radar.. highly unlikely.

Boehner strikes me as a trader.. someone Obama could work with.. IF Obama tried.. big if.

woof said...

Arab linguists outside the ones that were gay and were found out because they were trolling for boys at two Arizona high schools and an big arcade area.

Do you have a citation for that ?

"Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military."

garage mahal said...

Maybe you don't know a damn thing about what makes a good soldier.

I bet our best soldiers prepare and perform not dependent on whether the person next to them might be gay or not.

garage mahal said...

FOCUS PEOPLE !!

Lem said...

@ 8:32 I agree with garage.. I hope I don't get sent to Siberia because of it ;)

Chase said...

I bet our best soldiers prepare and perform not dependent on whether the person next to them might be gay or not.

That's a truism - somewhat true and yet somewhat not true.

The Military - our "best soldiers" - train under best practices, best efficiencies. Nothing that gets in the way during training is allowed - either it doesn't exist in the training or it is subsumed into as tight a role as possible. Although converging men and women together in the training would heighten efficiency and make "equal rights" sense, men and women do not sleep together and do not shower together in the military. And there are good reasons - readiness reasons for that.

The issue should be argued with as much deference to the military chiefs as possible and is reasonable.

Lem said...

I had heard something of an idea getting kicked around of asking retired Supreme Sandra Day O'Connor to be a tie breaker.. sort of like a Supreme VP.

I guess the idea didn't go anywhere.

Lem said...

..or it is subsumed into as tight a role as possible.

I was going to make a joke.. but a side of me begged off.

Fred4Pres said...

I would give the military a year and let them work it out. Goldwater had it right when he said all that matters if they shoot straight.

It is really not that big a deal. Most gays who want to serve want to serve. A few showboaters might join to stir the pot, but the military can basically tell you how to wipe your ass with its regulations. I think they can deal with that.

And oh btw, they can also deal with overreaction the other way.

sunsong said...

Recently I heard the phrase "Why should someone be allowed to vote on my civil rights?"

Because that's how it works.


That doesn't ring true to me because it negates the idea of "Natural Rights" which I see as foundational to our Republic. It also dismisses the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Randy Barnett explains the 9th so very well, imo:

Rights are unenumerable because rights define a private domain within which persons have a right to do as they wish, provided their conduct does not encroach upon the rightful domains of others. As long as their actions remain within this rightful domain, other persons— including the government—should not interfere. Because people have a right to do whatever they please within the boundaries defined by natural rights, this means that the rights retained by the people are limited only by their imagination and could never be completely specified or enumerated. In sum, as Madison stated, "the pre-existent rights of nature" are "essential to secure the liberty of the people."22 And because liberty is open-ended, so are our rights. - Randy Barnett

Lem said...

psst,, what Fred is saying is that Obama has wasted a couple of years.. basically.

BJM said...

@Trooper

RELEASE THE KAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BUHWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

(Dude,you owe me a keyboard.)

Lem said...

Those are excellent points sunsong..

But it seems to me that the small nature (I have no way of knowing whether this is so, I'M JUST SPECULATING) of the minority necessitates a conscious effort by the people via the vote in order to see to it that their rights are protected.

Via a majority vote we would send a clear message that sexual orientation should not deprive homosexuals from serving the country.. in some capacity.

A 5 to 4 its like Florida 2000 all over again.. people stoped counting when Kerry announced.. the deep wounds it created hindered Bush all the way into his second term.

Constitutional amendments are nice but you know waht the feminist mafia did to those dont you?

Constitutional amendments are required reading for the Supremes and they dont even read them.

Lem said...

I think, call me naive, that a congressional vote to end DADT would surprise a lot of people.

I would put it under 70 in the house to keep DADT in place.. and under 30 in the senate.

I remember telling a supervisor of mine (with polish and german decend) years b4 the Berlin Wall came down that wath Gorbacheb had started would lead to the wall coming down.

He not only dout it.. he said it would never come down.

He bought me a bottle of Jack when it finally did.

Fred4Pres said...

Lem said...
psst,, what Fred is saying is that Obama has wasted a couple of years.. basically.

11/12/10 9:38 PM



Not what I was thinking, but yes that is true.

Lem said...

I remember when the issue was brought up early on in the Obama presidency the term "full plate" was bandied about.

As if the WH could not walk and chew gum at the same time.

Idiots.

Lem said...

We need to contact Obamas wondering mind.. as we learned from a study earlier today a wondering mind is an unhappy mind.

Hello

Hello, hello

Are you out there?
M.O.D. are you out there?
I can't see your face
But you left a trace on a data back-road
That I almost erased
Not even God takes this long to get back
So get back
'Cause I hit a fork in the road
I lost my way home
I'm cut off from out main line
Like a disconnected modem

Hello
Tap in the code
I'll reach you below
No one should brave the underworld alone
Hello, hello, hello
How do I reach you?

Word has it on the wire
That you don't who you are
Well if you could jack into my brain
You'd know exactly what you mean here
Mothers are trails on stars in the night
Fathers are black holes that suck up the light
That's the memory I filed on the fringe
Along with the memory of the pain you lived in
Hello

I don't have the password
But the path is chainlinked
So if you've got the time
Set up the tone to sync
Tap in the code
I'll reach you below

Hello, hello
Are you out there?

Lem said...

How Soon Is Now? - The Smiths

I am the son
and the heir
Of a shyness that is criminally vulgar
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular

You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does

I am the son
And the heir
Of a shyness that is criminally vulgar
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular

You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does

There's a club, if you'd like to go
You could meet someone who really loves you
So you go, and you stand on your own
And you leave on your own
And you go home
And you cry
And you want to die

When you say it's gonna happen now,
When exactly do you mean?
See I've already waited too long
And all my hope is gone

Penny said...

"Hello, hello
Are you out there?"

Always out there. >>>>>>>

Lem said...

I am what I see - Single Gun Theory

Lem said...

I love you Penny but you loose me when you write as though you were not.. i dont want to use the word proud because its kind of overused sometimes.. nut you write sometimes as though we are less that good for the world.

The reason why I'm castigating you is because you are not the only one.. and I feel that all those negative voices has a cumulative effect.. the effect of making us a lesser and lesser force for good.

wv - broddde - omg thats the last thing i want.

Lem said...

Caring Is Creepy - [Cover]

wv - barca - waht a fisherman knows.

Lem said...

Bishop's Robes - Radiohead

Dressed in bishop's robes
Terrifies me still
In bishop's robes
Bastard headmaster
I am not going back
I am not going back
I am not going back

Children taught to kill, to tear themselves to bits
On playing fields
Dressed in bishop's robes
I am not going back
I am not going back
I am not going back

Lem said...

Born Under A Bad Sign - Albert King

wv - beriesti - bad luck press

Lem said...

maybe bad luck is not a politicaly correct way to define DADT policy but I figure when you are asking for something you should avail of all the friend you have..

asking for anything at all is not a good friend ;)

call it a tea patier with compassion..

Lem said...

Concierto d'Aranjuez, Adagio - Pepe Romero

Music making a beautiful argument.

Lem said...

unfortunately.. the political body that is todays Supremes is not musical.. but they still have to make some noise.

and there we have it.. its like asking a sensor not to sensor.

the nature of their task is irresitible.

Lem said...

good bye

Youngblood said...

Chase wrote:

"But when your emotion cause you to call my family members who serve in United State Marines, Navy and Army protecting your 'life, liberty, and happiness' and rights 'pussies' . . . "

If they find the prospect of open homosexuals serving next to them scary, then Palladian's right. They are pussies if they're afraid of the big scary gays.

And I say that as a veteran of the Iraq War (class of 05-06).

AllenS said...

The military needs to be very selective on who they should allow to serve. These decisions are best made by people in the service and in command leadership roles. Everybody else needs to shut the fuck up.

AllenS, Army paratrooper 1966-68. Combat veteran with 2 purple hearts. My first Purple Heart put me in the hospital longer than Fuck Face Kerry served overseas. Then I returned to my unit, and earned another Purple Heart.

AllenS said...

Having served in combat, I can say this with some authority and knowledge. You do not want the person next to you in combat that has a limp wrist, in a wheelchair, with one leg, bad eyesight, bad hearing, no trigger finger and I could go on, but you should get the picture. I've met very few homos, but I can say this, all have been effeminate. That is a characteristic that you do not want in the military.

shoutingthomas said...

God help us!

When will this be over!

Haven't heard a new idea on this in 60 years.

Clyde said...

"-- with Kagan not participating."

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

AllenS said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Abraham Lincoln was all for segregation.

Abe Lincoln -- Speech at Columbus Ohio, September 16, 1859--

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the ***** is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence,--the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, --certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Jason, you need to take your sunglasses off when inside.

AllenS said...

I received an email from someone who is currently in the military. I agreed to post his email. Here it is:

Allen: As you can tell from the email, I'm a current serving Soldier. Went maverick a while ago, but still a fellow enlistedman at heart.

Saw your recent post, and wanted to 2d you. Obviously cannot comment unless off the record.

But reading Althouse for a while now, I trust you. If I sent you my comment, would you post for me?

Respectfully,
***


I replied: Can do.

Trooper York said...

Oh crap.

I missed Late Night Lem blogging last night.

Great songs dude.

DaveW said...

Why does she recuse herself from this but not from decisions on the health care cases?

woof said...

I've met very few homos, but I can say this, all have been effeminate. That is a characteristic that you do not want in the military.

You've probably unknowingly met many homos. Most gay people are indistinguishable from straight people.

Fen said...

Garage: If a service member's "readiness" is effected by knowing a gay person is serving in the same military, well he ain't much of a soldier to begin with.

People who have never served in a victor unit do not understand the basic concepts and should shut the fuck up.

Fen said...

Although converging men and women together in the training would heighten efficiency and make "equal rights" sense, men and women do not sleep together and do not shower together in the military. And there are good reasons - readiness reasons for that.

This.

When you mix women into a male combat unit, the males stop responding to each other like a pack of wolves and instead start competing against each other for the women's affection.

To say nothing about the PFC who thinks his SGT is putting him back out on patrol so he can get in with his girlfriend.

It has nothing to do with a gay's ability to serve. It has to do with basic human nature - mixing genders changes the way the group interacts. From a Victor Unit perspective, it means your brothers stop trusting your leadership and start second-guessing your motives.

When that starts to happen, people start to die.

Fen said...

But hey, whats a few hundred dead Marines when you consider the PR value and precedence it would lend to the Gay Rights Movement? Right?

Fuckers.

Fen said...

Because thats what this is really about. Its not about gays serving; they already do. Its about leveraging open service in the military into Gay Marriage.

And you'll stand on the corpses of my fellow Marines to do it.

Go. To. Hell.