DOJ appeals for immediate stay

[MoltenRock III]

For the damned life of me I can't understand why Obama didn't wait the full 60 days to appeal this decision if that was in fact what he wanted to do. If he actually was serious about ending it, he could have done this which would have let the policy pretty much come apart at the seams, and he could still do his Presidential chicken dance.

Fucking ridiculous, and especially right before the election? And yet the WH team wonders why the "left" or the "base" isn't all that energized? Go fucking figure.

 

[chuck10x]

This is the same district court that says it's fine for officers to plant GPS devices on anyone's car sitting in a driveway. I am not surprised about this at all.

And seriously, what does Obama have to do with this? In fact, what can Obama do in any part of either effort to repeal DADT? The courts are fighting it from the judicial branch of government. Congress is fighting it from the legislative branch. All Obama can really do is an executive order, which he cannot do due to the nature of the policy. What else can he do besides make speeches that neither the judges nor congress really cares about.

MoltenRock provided a link in post #16 of what Obama could or could not do.
Please read it.
In my opinion, Obama's best choice was to do nothing and let the ruling stand.

 

[Lostlover]

For the damned life of me I can't understand why Obama didn't wait the full 60 days to appeal this decision if that was in fact what he wanted to do. If he actually was serious about ending it, he could have done this which would have let the policy pretty much come apart at the seams, and he could still do his Presidential chicken dance.

Fucking ridiculous, and especially right before the election? And yet the WH team wonders why the "left" or the "base" isn't all that energized? Go fucking figure.

I agree, he could have waited 60 days. However he probably doesn't want a cultural issue on the agenda before the election. I doubt it would, but I know President Obama isn't too eager to offend those that wish for his downfall.

Like I said earlier, he's of the mentality that laws must be changed by congress. And with a lame duck session coming up, democrats that are likely to be unseated will possibly pass a bill ending DADT since they'll have nothing to lose.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Like I said earlier, he's of the mentality that laws must be changed by congress. And with a lame duck session coming up, democrats that are likely to be unseated will possibly pass a bill ending DADT since they'll have nothing to lose.

They need to also pass the Energy Reform Act with the lame duck session, but won't. Frankly, America's downfall if they don't pass that legislation, is only reaffirmed by those tools of the oil & gas lobbies.

 

[T-Rexx]

I read Obama's explanation. Well, a law school professor that shares the same ideology as President Obama with respect to the president's role in law making. Both believe the POTUS is NOT supposed to be the main player in scrapping laws, but instead Congress.

Purity of thought may be laudable in religious circles, but it is not a practical means of pursuing a legislative agenda. What would we think of Harry Truman today if he had insisted that integration of the military be voted on by Congress, then he had lost in Congress and his DOJ had argued for continuation of segregation - all the way to SCOTUS!? Would anyone today care that he was ideologically pure in trying to continue segregation?

Passing laws is a combative, messy process. To insist on purity of process is naive to the point of incompetence. And Obama did not seem to care that his health care bill was passed in one of the most ideologically flawed manners ever accomplished. But he got the job done.

With gay rights, however, Obama seems to be deliberately trying to fail. And his excuses for his failure sound exactly like what they are - excuses.

Obama, I might add, was critical of President Bush's eagerness to interfere in the Executive branch. So, Obama would be seen as a hypocrite if he was to do the same here with DADT. Sucks, I know, but he's been very clear that DADT will be history under his watch.

Hyocrisy is how presidents historically have managed their greatest accomplishments. Jefferson insisted he did not have the authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory. But he bought it, illegally, by his own determination, because failing to do so would have been devastating to the country.

Sometimes, getting the job done is more important than ideology.

 

[JB3]

For the damned life of me I can't understand why Obama didn't wait the full 60 days to appeal this decision if that was in fact what he wanted to do. If he actually was serious about ending it, he could have done this which would have let the policy pretty much come apart at the seams, and he could still do his Presidential chicken dance.

Fucking ridiculous, and especially right before the election? And yet the WH team wonders why the "left" or the "base" isn't all that energized? Go fucking figure.

It is BECAUSE of the election that they issued the appeal so quickly. They've realized that they're not going to do well, so now they're trying to limit the losses in on-the-edge areas.

 

[MoltenRock III]

It is BECAUSE of the election that they issued the appeal so quickly. They've realized that they're not going to do well, so now they're trying to limit the losses in on-the-edge areas.

That's utter bullshit.

No one is going to vote for Obama or Democrats based on this action. No one.

It's much like Blanche Lincoln and the healthcare bill that she could say she "voted for it, before she voted against it". It makes no one interested in supporting Obama (or Blanche Lincoln.)

 

[JB3]

That's utter bullshit.

No one is going to vote for Obama or Democrats based on this action. No one.

It's much like Blanche Lincoln and the healthcare bill that she could say she "voted for it, before she voted against it". It makes no one interested in supporting Obama (or Blanche Lincoln.)

I'm not saying that they'd vote for them. But they might not vote against them.

(And you have to understand, this is something that that dolt David Axlerod would have come up with, so it isn't exactly well thought out) When you're as desperate as they are right now, stupid strategies start to come out.

 

[MercuryJones]

Really? Republicans at least didn't look you in the eye and PROMISE to do support gays and do the opposite. Frankly, I'd rather know your character up front and have the opportunity to disagree with it than to be conned, disappointed, then have to disagree with it after wasting a vote.

When Dems start pushing anti-gay Constitutional amendments get back to me.

 

[Lostlover]

That's utter bullshit.

No one is going to vote for Obama or Democrats based on this action. No one.

It's much like Blanche Lincoln and the healthcare bill that she could say she "voted for it, before she voted against it". It makes no one interested in supporting Obama (or Blanche Lincoln.)

I don't think so either. But we know how afraid of confrontation Obama has been since being POTUS.

I thought this all would have ended once Rahm returned to under the bridge.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I don't think so either. But we know how afraid of confrontation Obama has been since being POTUS.

I thought this all would have ended once Rahm returned to under the bridge.

Rahm still hasn't left has he? I think he's there until 2nd week of Nov.

 

[T-Rexx]

The military is returning to DADT.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...back-in-force-after-appeals-court-issues-stay

Gonna be a few more decades, guys. And we were sooooo close.

 

[Lostlover]

Purity of thought may be laudable in religious circles, but it is not a practical means of pursuing a legislative agenda. What would we think of Harry Truman today if he had insisted that integration of the military be voted on by Congress, then he had lost in Congress and his DOJ had argued for continuation of segregation - all the way to SCOTUS!? Would anyone today care that he was ideologically pure in trying to continue segregation?

Passing laws is a combative, messy process. To insist on purity of process is naive to the point of incompetence. And Obama did not seem to care that his health care bill was passed in one of the most ideologically flawed manners ever accomplished. But he got the job done.

With gay rights, however, Obama seems to be deliberately trying to fail. And his excuses for his failure sound exactly like what they are - excuses.






Hyocrisy is how presidents historically have managed their greatest accomplishments. Jefferson insisted he did not have the authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory. But he bought it, illegally, by his own determination, because failing to do so would have been devastating to the country.

Sometimes, getting the job done is more important than ideology.

I know. However, he's pussyfooted around many major issues by favoring watered down versions of bills and other legislation.

I do believe Obama can be disconnected from peoples' feelings. I think we saw some of that with his response to the gulf oil spill. I don't believe for a second he wishes gay men and women serving this country more isolation in the military. However, he seems to always do things on his own time. Like how he had a plan to reinforce the border on his desk for months before deciding to act on it when immigration became the issue of the media.

 

[Lostlover]

Rahm still hasn't left has he? I think he's there until 2nd week of Nov.

The bastard is already campaigning for mayor of Chicago.

 

[T-Rexx]

...he's been very clear that DADT will be history under his watch.

Well, one thing's for sure. DADT has been history under Obama's watch.

Not the kind of history we would have wanted. But Obama's infamy is not going to be forgotten for a long, long time.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ yes, it's going to be a few more decades.

We were soooooo close.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree, he could have waited 60 days. However he probably doesn't want a cultural issue on the agenda before the election. I doubt it would, but I know President Obama isn't too eager to offend those that wish for his downfall.

Like I said earlier, he's of the mentality that laws must be changed by congress. And with a lame duck session coming up, democrats that are likely to be unseated will possibly pass a bill ending DADT since they'll have nothing to lose.

By doing this, he PUT a "cultural issue" on the agenda. As I said elsewhere, even people at my mom's retirement community are pissed at him -- for being a low-down untrustworthy liar.

 

[T-Rexx]

I don't believe for a second he wishes gay men and women serving this country more isolation in the military.

I no longer believe this.

Obama has indicated his opposition to gay marriage and has stated his religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong.

I honestly believe the guy is a closet homophobe. He does not support gay rights any more than GWB did.

 

[MercuryJones]

I honestly believe the guy is a closet homophobe. He does not support gay rights any more than GWB did.

Though I hate having to defend Obama, because I have many criticisms of him, this last sentence is just demonstrably false.

Bush promoted a constitutional amendment against us, opposed any advancements for us (however small), and gave greater power and influence to many who are very gay-hostile.

Obama has extended spousal rights for gays, within his direct power to do so, and has put gay-friendly people in place. He's supporting ENDA, supported the Matthew Shepard Act.

I have my own gripes, but to say he's as homophobic as Bush is simply untrue.

 

[MoltenRock III]

The makeup of Congress will not fav us on this issue for the next 2 maybe 4 yrs as it has the last 2

just guessing but i dont believe the current SCOTUS fav us on this issue

so it may be a long time

Honestly, that's why I've been financially supporting the overturning of anti-gay laws state by state, vs. the SCOTUS approach. I've always been afraid of this option. If the SCOTUS hears the case, and rules against us fags then our cause is set back 10 to 20 years, whereby if we lose in just one state or two states, we win in 4 or 5 states. By the time we have 20 or 25 states where gay marriage is legal, THEN the SCOTUS approach opens it up to everyone as they can't really rule against that many states.

I hope I'm wrong! I really do. But it's a crapshoot at best. Ya know?