U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled today that the American military must stop enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell permanently. Last month, Phillips issued an opinion that the military was violating troops' First Amendment rights. Phillips wrote that the government had failed to meet the burden of proving that DADT was necessary for "military readiness and unit cohesion."
Judge Phillips gave both sides in the suit, the Log Cabin Republicans and the federal government, a chance to respond. The Justice Department filed a brief arguing that halting DADT was too big a burden and that any injunction should apply only to the named parties.
So much for that. Today Judge Phillips ordered a permanent injunction, writing that the military must "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Act. . . on or prior to the date of this Judgment."
Now the government can appeal her ruling, and since she's a district judge, you can start the countdown for that filing. Meanwhile, you can download today's very short opinion here.
Read up. We'll have more on the show tonight.
Leave a Comment:
Epic news!
It's the Judicial system doing that which both the Legislative and Executive branches were too cowardly to do. This is great news!
This is why we have the federal court system: to right the wrongs the political system can't or won't. (Which is probably why the right spends so much energy attacking the courts.)
What a simple solution that fall back directly onto the strength of the Constitution. Now, does the rest of the Judicial branch have the ethics and integrity to uphold our sacred document?
I am annoyed that this case is Log Cabin Republicans v. the federal government. What is wrong with this picture, folks?
Here's hoping the government won't appeal (but not holding my breath).
Do you think it's wrong that the challenge (successful, so far) was mounted by Republicans rather than Democrats? Or is it merely ideologically inconvenient?
As Mark McKinnon reminded us Monday night, not all Republicans are culture warriors, and even though he is a professional Republican he was at least as hard on the party on the subject of gay rights as was Rachel. An ally is an ally is an ally.
Agreed...EPIC!
Accusations on Fox News of "Activist Judge" in 5... 4... 3... 2...
lol
At age 18, a gay person can legally smoke, travel the world, sign his or her future away to porno, and go to jail. It's unfortunate that he or she cannot serve their country, openly and honestly. Even more unfortunate, that it takes a judge to keep a promise our president made over 2 years ago to change that!
It is so ordered.
EEEH :)
Susan - why does it matter who brought the suit? I don't understand your frustration...
Well it doesn't, fundamentally. Whatever gets DADT repealed works for me. Except... I'm annoyed that Obama promised to repeal DADT but that it's taken a Republican political organization to actually challenge the law. I don't like that from a personal political point of view. If the administration decides not to appeal, that will be the perfect ending, IMHO -- a bi-partisan solution of sorts. But it looks like the administration wants an "official" congressional repeal rather than a judicial reversal, so that means the administration will probably appeal. I can see the logic here - Congressional action is probably the best way to ensure the discrimination stops for the long haul. However, I hate to see good military folks continue to suffer from DADT in the meantime, which is why I hope the judicial action stands.
LCR aren't the only one's to have challenged the law.
It's about time! I served in the Army in the 70s and had many gay and lesbian friends. I am proud to have served with them. Finally, someone in the system understands the Constitution.
double post - deleted
:)
Let it be real. Let it be real. Let it be real.
Another nail in the coffin for the ill-conceived "compromise" of DADT. Great news.
I would assume that the decision to appeal has to be made by Eric Holder and that Holder is beholdin (sorry about that) to Mr. Obama. So since Congress won't fix it, Obama can by saying "do not appeal." That's the end of the case, and the end of the ban. Of course, the decision came out today, October 12, because there will be no decision on whether to appeal this until after November 2. There will be calls by Republicans to get a commitment to file the notice of appeal and they will try to make a political issue out of it. But Holder should simply announce today that he and he alone is going to make that decision, and he wants time to reflect on the opinion and on the likely effects of the opinion. Then, he just runs out the clock.
Trying not to get my hopes up too high. Please let this stand.
I foresee one of two possibilities:
1.) The ruling is challenged and begins yet another round of debate which will drag on for months if not years, while our military is weakened further by the removal of essential and mission critical personnel who speak the languages (Arabic and Farsi) we so desperately need to understand.
2.) The Obama Administration makes no move to challenge it and simply says, "We agree with the judges opinion." After all, it essentially removes any potential political fallout from touching most Democrats, including the President. If the Right attacks him over this, he can point to the Judicial branch upholding the Constitution and question why they don't want to do the same thing.
Personally, I am hoping he chooses option two and we can finally grant this essential freedom to Americans who want to serve.
Freedom is what America is all about, right?
Right?
I knew there was a reason the judicial branch was my favorite back in high school civics! Wonderful news.
I've had similar thoughts. Of course, it used to be the Supreme Court that got all the lefty love...from the '50s to the '70s, anyway. Now, though, not so much; and my wish is to keep the rulings in the inferior federal courts and as far away from SCOTUS as possible.
As the wife of an airman, I am really pleased to see that this issue is finally being delt with.
Now that DADT has been repealed (keep in mind that no further legislation on how to address homosexuals in the armed services has been advanced) one needs to realize that this now treats homosexuals in the services the way they were treated before DADT ever existed. NOBODY has addressed that yet!! Don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back just yet. Before DADT they were actively sought out, interrogated as to their preference, even witch hunted and then either bad conduct discharged, or discharged under (earlier years) the same chapter as insane or mentally unstable people...remember Corporal Klinger??!?!?! He was pre-DADT!!!
Yes, I agree. I WAS one of those victims of a witch hunt in 1984. When asked of my commander why was this witch hunt happening, he just stated "You are a security risk. The Soviet Union will black mail you and may try to get information out of you." My reply was "If you don't make it illegal, then no one could ever black mail me, right?" Received General under Honorable Conditions, but not an Honorable which means I lost some valuable benefits. I did nothing wrong but was kicked out of the Air Force for being gay. So were 7 other friends all brought down by the elaborate witch hunts of the 80's.
That's incorrect, spujo. If the court says the military can't kick someone out for being gay, they can't kick someone out for being gay. The part of the law this case challenges is the part where the military can kick someone out for being gay.
Rachel:
I received an e-mail from Color of Change today that I find most disturbing. Please do whatever research you need to do on this and speak out about it. Here's the link:
http://www.colorofchange.org/turnofffox/580/?id=1777-886731
An Al Gore's film was a catalyst for the shooter at the Discovery Channel.
And Jodie Foster was part of the reason Hinckley shot Reagan. Do you find this disturbing, too, Mary-Lee?
Crazy people do crazy things.
I would squeal, but I'm afraid to be hurt again.
Here's my legal question: If they are enjoined to stop enforcing DADT, is there a previous policy that they will then re-enact? That would be worse.
I shouldn't think so. When Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, that didn't mean that SCOTUS was reaffirming and reapplying Scott v Sandford. Read the ruling. It's only three pages long.
I truly hope this finally puts the last nail in the coffin of DADT, and serves as a stepping stone to the acceptance of gay marriage. Our society is so far behind the rest of the world in this regard. Do we really feel that by denying 10% of our population the full rights that the rest of us have, that we are somehow better off, more moral, more superior, more godly?
Let's take one judge's opinion that DADT does no affect "military readiness and unit cohesion" instead of waiting for the report requested by Obama's Secretary of Defense. I think a federal judge is expertly qualified to evaluate our military's capability of carrying out its mission.
How about instead of a judge who is a professional legal decision maker, we get someone who is immersed in military life and already has tons of preconceived opinions about this matter.
Let's wait on the report, which will no doubt be biased in the way of the higher ups making the report.
OR
We can have a free market type battle here, and let the best side win the discussion/appeals process.
The constitution does not ask for reports to president Obama. What it does do is give the courts the ability to hear all sides of legal challenges. Your qualm is with the constitution.
I have no problem with the constitution. If you will read my comment I specifically referred to the part of the judges ability to determine if it would affect "military readiness and unit cohesion."
And to mention bias? How is this for bias:
So it is okay for you to make up your mind before hand but not for anyone else? And what if the report does lay out a strategy for reversing the policy, will it be bias then or right on the money because it supports your position?
I am also okay with a "market type battle" and in our system one judge does not make the determining factor. There are appeal processes and safe guards because we do have a strong constitution.
And you are wrong again on...
Article Two Section 1 deems the President the Commander in Chief and he would be neglecting his duties if he did not consult his military leadership on issues regarding the military.
Notice that the President is above the military. The military answers to civilian leadership for good reasons. You don't seem to accept that.
The argument of military readiness and unit cohesion in respect to this issue has always been a bad joke. Even the people that are the architects of DADT reject it now (Nunn and Powell).
The judge had to consider the constitutionality of the law and the DOJ couldn't defend it apparently. You may like the arguments. But that doesn't change that they are nonsense.
Notice that the President is above the military.
I'm the one who pointed that out. Thanks for reiterating it. Although your second assertion is less than true. There is a strong checks and balance in place as evidence by this case being before a judge.
So Senator Nunn and General Powell were part of a bad joke? I didn't know these two men were so easily manipulated. Instead, I suspect that they did believe that at the time and times change. And maybe this policy will eventually as well.
They were not manipulated, but made the bad joke. I don't know if they really intended the actual policy as implemented. Clinton says they deceived him. Powell denies that. Of course, it's hard to decide whom to believe less.