July 11, 2011

The 9th Circuit gives the Obama administration 10 days to say whether it will appeal the injunction against enforcing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

According to the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he court said it did not believe the Obama administration is prepared to defend the constitutionality of Don’[t] Ask, Don’t Tell....

But the court wrangling appears to be much ado about nothing.

Although the injunction will bar the military from discharging any gay or lesbian service members, as a practical matter the injunction will have little effect on a military that is gearing up for repeal. Pentagon officials have said that they will be ready to certify that the military is ready for repeal within weeks.


Richard said...

I'm tired of reading about fags again. New subject please.

edutcher said...

Be funny if this went to SCOTUS and they ruled DADT was OK.

Coketown said...

I'm gay and agree with Richard. This is boring. Fucking platypuses evolved faster than Obama's stance toward gays.

Repealing DADT was a great balancing act, though. He deserves credit for that. Gays were invested in it enough that repealing it will compel them to open their wallets for his re-election campaign, but social conservatives were so uninterested that repeal won't cause him to lose votes. The same can't be said for supporting gay marriage. Support would cost him votes.

Simon said...

edutcher said...
"Be funny if this went to SCOTUS and they ruled DADT was OK."

Not going to happen. What Justice Kennedy has written, he has written.

WV: dialmeth. Serving your slimeball needs 24 hours a day, dial 1-800-GETMETH.

Random Arrow said...

Obama to gays (until Obama gets it together) ...

“... Goodbye, rube tuesday,
Who could hang a name on you?"

Simon said...

Coketown said...
"Repealing DADT was a great balancing act, though. He deserves credit for that."


edutcher said...

Simon said...

edutcher said...
"Be funny if this went to SCOTUS and they ruled DADT was OK."

Not going to happen. What Justice Kennedy has written, he has written.

There's always Ginsburg. After being told by the Lefties to drop dead now, she just might go all cantankerous on them and start voting reasonably.

Fred4Pres said...

Richard and Coketown crack me up. That is funny.

Phil 3:14 said...

When was this admin " prepared to defend the constitutionality of Don’[t] Ask, Don’t Tell"?

The Crack Emcee said...

Phil 3:14,

When was this admin " prepared to defend the constitutionality of Don’[t] Ask, Don’t Tell"?

Obami doesn't know what he thinks, so his administration claims he's "evolving" while he holds his finger to the wind. I say he should put it up his ass and then get back to us on whether it bothered him or not.

I know - it's not the whole issue - but it would be a start,..

Roux said...

So do those that are gay and lesbian and serving in the military have special rights to not be discharged? My guess is yes....

Carol_Herman said...

For the life of me, how do you "announce" your sexuality on your forehead? Is this like obama LYING that he's got his birth certificate slapped to his forehead. And, then he added "all of the time!" ???

You're not supposed to guess, off hand, if a person isn't what they look like. Where men are men ... Even if they're not broad-shouldered. And, women are women, even if they aren't "stacked."

How'd the military become so selective that it matters to them if a man needs a ship to land where there are abundant whore-houses or not?

People have risked and given their lives for this country!

I am not amused by either obama or clinton, anymore. And, sad to say ... dubya wasn't much of a contribution, either.

Maybe if we had standards?

Maybe if you couldn't become commander in chief if you're abysmally ignorant of American history. And, constitutional law.

Maybe, then, I'd give a shit for the 9th. And, for legal wrangling.

I still respect ALL those who are willing to serve.

And, even all those, when LBJ was president, who weren't?

How do you even eliminate the gigolos from running for president?

Man. Every single day Sarah advances closer, and closer to her goal.

Carol_Herman said...

When I was young a fag was a cigarette.

Even there, the statistics we are given are hokum and lies! I'd bet less than 10% of smokers develop cancer. And, I'd bet 10% of smokers keep themselves thin. Which strikes against obesity.

And, I bet smoking offsets the bad stuff that leads to Alzheimer's.

Go kiss your ass. I don't care what your sexuality IS. You've been cheated, though, if religions forbid you from having pleasure.

Levi Starks said...

Im curious what you as a law prof think about this:
DADT was the president saying in effect "we're going to ignore the UCMJ" which forbids acts of homosexuality.
If you now say "we are eliminating DADT" aren't you still left with the underlying UCMJ rule which forbids acts of homosexuality?

America's Politico said...

A lot of people want to join me at these dinners with K-stree consultants. Happy to include as guest. This is where I had lunch (actually pea soup) today, http://www.ovalroom.com/. The conversation today was how bad the GOP is going to be defeated and why they cannot do anything. That is, they are finished. Everyone knows it. Yet, they cannot do anything. What irony.

Mary said...

Good for you posting this, A.A.


David said...

Someone please explain. I don't get it.

Ralph L said...

Obama is a fool for not defending the constitutional (and long respected) perogative of the Congress and President to make rules governing the military. This usurpation by the courts will slam future presidents in the ass.

Carol_Herman said...

The forbidding of sexual pleasures is what we got from religions.

Religions should just bud out of it!

Everyone who serves, and who has ever volunteered to serve, deserves admiration.

Along with all the draft resisters during the war in Vietnam, when the draft was still in effect!

Will sanity ever return?

Cedarford said...

Ironic this "new era" of gays and women demanding the "choice" of serving on subs (but not the anti-choice option of being treated like men and having to register for the Draft)!!!

Ironic because it will happen in a time of major defense dept staffing cutbacks to pay for all that unpaid-for "nation-building". The gays and the self-proclaimed "female warriors who seek to serve" will arrive right as the big Reduction in Force starts.
The Army and to a lesser extent the Marines are to be the main target given how fast "heroes with boots on the ground" burn through money...But AF and Navy commanders have sent out statements warning their personnel as well that less people, less ships and planes, and less money and fuel for training and "exercises" is going to hit them, too.

Sixty Grit said...

America's politi-moby wrote "K-stree" - must be some sort of Nepalese pastry. Hey, AP - do they have pastries in Nepal?

Luther said...

Cedarford, you make no fricking sense in your last. You will accuse me of lack of intellect to understand you, I will respond that you don't know what the frick you're talking about.

I'll venture a guess that you're saying Marines, and Army, should become as pussified as most of the left no matter the budget outlay. Hell if I know.

vw - ecult. We know from where that springs.

Carol_Herman said...

Ralph L ...

I'm reminded that back in 1933 ... FDR was so pissed off at the Supreme's ... he tried to pass a "correction" ... where the bench would increase to 23.

It was called "court packing" ... And, it failed.

HOWEVER, people die. And, FDR got to replace the entire bench of 9.

All presidents ... who get two terms ... find they are picking replacements.

And, I also remember Eisenhower saying he FAILED to pick well, after all.

JFK picked Wizzer White because he played their rectal game of football, out on the Hyannis Beach's house's front lawn.

Do you know the Supreme's still have no army to send out ... to enforce the time of day?

Plus, the ONLY reason judges wear black robes ... and sit on dias'es is to "enhance" their respect.


They may reduce themselves to laughingstock ...

Which would kill, outright, what John Marshall ... all by himself ... brought on board? Who knows?

Cedarford said...

Luther, I think the problem is your reading comprehension.
The military is "opening up" to all those "critically needed gay and female heroes *who serve*" at a time with a major RIF looming.

(RIF - Reduction in Force).

Making the arrival of the hero gays and woman heroes not really as necessary as their proponents have billed them as being.

And why are we going to do some serious damage to military budgets?
You either tax or cut spending. And defense is already a money hemorrhage that both Parties agree will have to endure substantial sacrifice.

The Crack Emcee said...

Hey - check this shit out:

You won't believe it,...

el polacko said...

good for the court for not letting the administration take credit for doing something that has yet to happen. "in a matter of weeks"? it's already been seven months (!) and even after the greenlight from the pentagon, there's another 60 days of sitting around twiddling thumbs before implementation for some unknown reason. DADT has been found to be
unconstitutional...that doesn't mean it's okey-dokey to keep it in effect anyway for as long as possible. the 'fun' is over, guys...there's no more harrassing of our brave servicemembers because of their orientation.

Peter said...

I'm curious. What happens when all these judges and lawyers, whose sons and daughters do not join the services as enlisted men and women, are proven wrong? What the hell are we going to do when the kids from Texas and Kentucky decide to do something else?

I will be happy to be proven wrong. I do not think I am. We have a helluva lot of folks here who do not know any of the 18-19 year old kids who join the services as E-1s.

Today every one of them is smart enough to go to college. They don't. Some can't afford it, most others are tired of the constant left wing drivel that passes for "education" today.

Now the left is taking over the military. Oh, goody. Oh well, there's always dope dealing.

Seriously. What the hell are you intellectuals going to do when the tough kids aren't out there with rifles protecting your smart asses? It ain't like you'll do it. You smart people have been avoiding the wars since Korea.

frank said...

Peter got it right. What no other country has been able to do, a handful of fakers, such as AA, has disarmed America. The backbone of our military--senior NCO's and field grade officers are now spending their time planning their exit from the service. The turmoil following VN '75--'80 is nothing compared to what the combat arms are experiencing now. Gates looked 'good' following Rummy but then anyone who followed McNamara was bound to look good also. Panetta actually is a vast improvement in a losing cause. Oh well, who needs a military when Obama is AWESOME!! Perhaps I'm a bit jaded after spending 4 Years killing babies by day and making babies by night. But I sure as fuck don't have the gall of expounding on a subject that you commenters only experienced vicariously in a classroom or engaged in conversation at the Union on your way to filling young people's heads with mush. WHEN YOU REALLY NEED A MILITARY--5--20 YEARS FROM NOW, CALL OUT THE 2 GAY WARRIORS TO FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM.

wuzzagrunt said...

The success of repealing DADT (from a military standpoint) will depend on the attitude of the troops. There seems to be a wide gulf in attitude between the admin/support types vs. the trigger pullers. I don't know. We shall see.

The real problem, as I see it, is the ultimate subversion of morale and discipline that will be caused by the inevitable retention and promotion quotas for homosexuals. This may be the final piece of the "diversity" puzzle that will make military service unacceptable to the people who actually do the fighting. If so, the destruction of America will be complete.

Mission accomplished!

Robert said...

Anyone else notice that in the last couple of weeks, Crack has become more blatant in his spamming?

I think he owes the Professor some serious referral coin.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Congratulations, Coketown, on your "blog comment of the day":


(I'm going to go ahead and declare anyone who gets deemed "Blog comment of the day" by Instapundit instant and unchallengable thread winner.

- Lyssa

Palladian said...

Seriously. What the hell are you intellectuals going to do when the tough kids aren't out there with rifles protecting your smart asses? "

Yes, because all those "tough kids" (infantilize our troops, much?) are as dumb as dirt and so grossed out and frightened by homos that they'll refuse to join up if there's even the possibility of a faggot within rifle-distance!

Seriously, if a potential soldier is this mentally unbalanced and/or such a pussy, he shouldn't be allowed to enlist.

I just hope Obama isn't allowed to take credit for anything good that comes out of this, because he's done jack shit for anyone.

Curious George said...

"wuzzagrunt said...

The real problem, as I see it, is the ultimate subversion of morale and discipline that will be caused by the inevitable retention and promotion quotas for homosexuals. This may be the final piece of the "diversity" puzzle that will make military service unacceptable to the people who actually do the fighting. If so, the destruction of America will be complete."

I don't know...a force comprised of 100% Madison lesbians would be unstoppable. I would pity the army that stands opposed.

Jason said...

Wait til the details come out. Yes, Frances, you can be gay and serve. No, you can't be floridly so. Yes, you can get married. No, your SO and his kids won't get military health care. No, they can't live in base housing. Yes, you get BAH type I. No, even though you married someone, you don't get the higher housing allowance that straight married people get, even though you have to shelter your family in the same market.

Getting stationed in Hawaii and San Diego's gonna be a blast!

We're gonna gave separate, unequal benefits for gay married and straight married. That's just gonna be SWELL for morale!

Great job, libtards!

MarkG said...

"...frightened by homos..."

You're flattering yourself. Nobody is frightened by homos.

The high-functioning parts of the military (e.g. special forces) will still perform. The stupid bullshit that goes along with accommodating gays, like a lot of the other stupid bullshit, will be borne by the low-functioning parts of the military.

So the military will survive and so will America.

Fred4Pres said...

Crack, thanks for that link. That is soem powerful mythmaking. Joseph Campbell could not be reached for comment, but I am sure he would have loved it.

No word from Bill Ayers on using his book in that manner.

SGT Ted said...

RE:DADT. People made the same sort of argument about black people serving alongside whites before Harry Truman desegregated the Armed Forces. Hell, they made even worse arguments; that blacks wouldn't fight as hard or as good as whites.

I served in a line unit for over 20 years. We had homosexuals in ranks and guess what? We didn't care a bit, as long as they did their job. We even made gay jokes together. I think their is even more acceptance of gay people from young folks today then when I was in.

The kerfuffle is just that; emotional bullshit from folks who cannot think rationally when the subject of homosexuality comes up. The troops will do what they're told and those that cannot follow the now lawful order to disregard someones sexual orientation will leave, just like the racists did in the 50s.

Because thats what it is really all about when it comes down to service: following orders.

G Joubert said...

Slouching Towards Gomorrah. And the beat goes on.

John said...

I too am tired of reading how DADT has been repealed.

It has not. It won't be repealed until the certifications are issued.

I am still willing to bet that in 2012 it will be illegal and grounds for possible discharge for servicemembers to partake of homosexual activity.

Any takers of the bet?

Not saying whether I think DADT should or should not be repealed. Only that it has not been and won't be, at least in 2011. Probably not while Obie is president.

John Henry

Palladian said...

Great comment, SGT Ted.

ken in sc said...

I am retired military. I say that there will be no big problem with male homosexuals openly serving. The main problem will be with bull moose dikes. They are crude, aggressive, abusive, and they take advantage of any authority they have. They force themselves on heterosexual girls. I have seen them take over a female barracks and run it like a harem. Enforcement of the anti-homosexual articles of the UCMJ was the only thing that broke up their little party.