Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
CNS News ^

Posted on 05/21/2008 4:37:24 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 05/21/2008 4:37:24 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Hey, why not. Gays can now marry in California. Just open the floodgates.


2 posted on 05/21/2008 4:39:04 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Separation of powers? What’s that?

One would assume that this can be appealed to the USSC, where at the moment they usually understand what the Constitution is.


3 posted on 05/21/2008 4:42:11 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Nothing the 9th Circus Court does is a surprise...anything immoral goes with this lot.


4 posted on 05/21/2008 4:43:51 PM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Ninth Circuit

Why do these guys still have jobs? Just about every. single. ruling. this court has made has been overturned by the USSC...

5 posted on 05/21/2008 4:45:29 PM PDT by John123 (Obama said that he has been in 57 states. I will now light myself on fire...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
What the h*** business is it of the Ninth Circus what reason the Air Force gives for discharging someone?

Is there no affair of man or beast that the Ninth Circus doesn't consider within its purview?

Riddle of the day:

What is the difference between a dictator and a leftist court?

The dictator only has one head.


6 posted on 05/21/2008 4:45:38 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (By their false faith in Man as God, the left would destroy us. They call this faith change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
citing the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision

To think of how Scalia and Santorum were scorned and ridiculed when they warned where Lawrence v. Texas would lead.

7 posted on 05/21/2008 4:45:56 PM PDT by AHerald ("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; wagglebee

The 9th circus will be overruled as usual!


8 posted on 05/21/2008 4:47:06 PM PDT by PROCON (Hillary '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If the nation were best defended by an army made exclusively of 3-legged dwarfs, that’s the one I’d want. If we lose a war, it’s no consolation that we, at least, were non-discriminatory in our recruiting practices.


9 posted on 05/21/2008 4:48:14 PM PDT by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Looks like another slapdown is coming for the 9th Circus.


10 posted on 05/21/2008 4:49:48 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celtic gal

celtic gal: “Nothing the 9th Circus Court does is a surprise...anything immoral goes with this lot.”

Perhaps you don’t realize they think you’re immoral for opposing them. In their eyes, they are only trying to correct past wrongs, and you’re the judgmental, evil one if you speak against them. Unfortunately, even some FReepers support the rights of homosexuals to marry. They say it’s a matter of civil rights and individual liberty. It is sad. We have reached the point where perversion is called good and good is called evil. God save us!


11 posted on 05/21/2008 4:50:31 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Republican Who Will NOT Vote McCain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Stuff like this makes holding the nose and voting McCain a bit easier.

Can you imagine if Hussein got to appoint 3 new Supreme Court Judges and they started upholding the 9th circus decisions?


12 posted on 05/21/2008 4:50:31 PM PDT by icwhatudo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
citing the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision

To think of how Scalia and Santorum were scorned and ridiculed when they warned where Lawrence v. Texas would lead.

I bet the Ninth Circuit can't wait for a gay marriage case and use Lawrence vs. Texas. We might have one coming up to bat. The referendum to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage passes but the next day someone sues in federal court citing Lawrence vs. Texas.

13 posted on 05/21/2008 4:52:34 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pissant

The US Supreme Court opened the floodgates with Lawrence V. Texas. This is just an inevitable response to it.

But who cares? Let the liberal judges make all the rulings they want. I don’t however buy the idea that the military is subject to judicial review or should be bound by it.


14 posted on 05/21/2008 4:53:48 PM PDT by Ronin (Is there some PC rule on FR that says that when an evil man gets sick, we must pretend he was saint?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow

Would it be improper for the Air Force to discharge someone after 18 years of service, if they knew for years that person was a lesbian, for the purpose of denying that person their military retirement benefits?


15 posted on 05/21/2008 4:53:58 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AHerald

Wikipedia and all other commentators are going to have to hurry to revise statements that it is “highly unlikely” that courts will try to apply Lawrence to service in the military:

“Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriages, and the right to serve in the military. The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court’s recognition that “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.”[15] The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the last court of appeals for Courts-Martial before the Supreme Court, has upheld that Lawrence applies to Article 125 of the UCMJ, the article banning Sodomy. However, the court has twice upheld prosecutions under Article 125 (the article prohibiting sodomy), in United States v. Marcum and United States v. Stirewalt, finding that the article was “constitutional as applied to Appellant”[16][17] and when applied as necessary to preserve good order and discipline in the armed forces. Although no court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to require states to allow same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts required that same-sex couples be given full marriage rights. The decision did cite Lawrence, which was decided some four and a half months earlier, but did not draw on its direct precedential authority, as Goodridge was decided on exclusively state constitutional grounds. On the other hand, several federal district and circuit courts that have considered the extent of Lawrence have held that it is an extremely narrow holding under rational basis review. These courts have ruled that Lawrence does not call into question laws regulating marriage, nor does Lawrence strike down other regulations related to homosexuality. (See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Lofton v. Sec. of Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th. Cir. 2004); Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).) The Supreme Court has not yet accepted any cases that present an opportunity to further define the implications of Lawrence....”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas


16 posted on 05/21/2008 4:54:39 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Can you imagine if Hussein got to appoint 3 new Supreme Court Judges and they started upholding the 9th circus decisions?

Or started incorporating sharia law into decisions?!

You do know the U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document, don't you?/sarc

17 posted on 05/21/2008 4:55:41 PM PDT by PROCON (Hillary '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
Wikipedia and all other commentators are going to have to hurry to revise statements that it is “highly unlikely” that courts will try to apply Lawrence to service in the military

Good catch.

18 posted on 05/21/2008 4:57:24 PM PDT by AHerald ("Be faithful to God ... do not bother about the ridicule of the foolish." - St. Pio of Pietrelcina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Fine, the USAF should set aside her discharge then courts martial her for misconduct and send her sorry ass to prison for ten years.


19 posted on 05/21/2008 4:57:38 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Ninth Circuit Rules Against Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' By Pete Winn CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer May 21, 2008

What is a civilian court doing meddling in military matters? Since they are lawyers and leftists with disordered minds it is no surprise. But where is the "adult leadership" in this country? That court needs a slapdown for sure!

20 posted on 05/21/2008 4:58:30 PM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
"The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court's recognition that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society"

This is what Wikipedia's citizen editors were saying before now about why it was supposed to be "highly unlikely" that Lawrence could be applied to military service issues..... now we will have to see whether the SCOTUS still recognizes the important of the US military as "by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society" -- or will they join in the leftist trashing of the military by erasing the basic differences between military and civilian institutions???
21 posted on 05/21/2008 4:59:59 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Normally, we don't need to worry much about a dumb decision by the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. It is the most reversed Court of Appeals in the known universe. However, in this case, the Ninth is relying on a prior (5-4) decision in the US Supreme Court.

The sodomy decision from the US Supreme Court is coming back to haunt the whole American judiciary, exactly as Justice Scalia then predicted in his sharp dissent.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "King George Wears a Black Robe"

22 posted on 05/21/2008 5:00:27 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

For all who are intending to sit out this election, take a good look at Osama’s potential SC justices IF he wins the WH...THAT SHOULD SCARY THE CRAP OUTTA U! And we are taking for LIFE! God help us! Please!


23 posted on 05/21/2008 5:00:50 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
If that (denial of retirement benefits) could be shown to be the purpose of the discharge, I would think that improper, yes, regardless of the excuse they used to justify the discharge. I don't know what the regulations are, however.

Why do you ask?

24 posted on 05/21/2008 5:05:18 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (By their false faith in Man as God, the left would destroy us. They call this faith change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Oops...taking should read talking...:)


25 posted on 05/21/2008 5:06:07 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Barack, as a potential commander-in-chief, just let out a sigh of relief. “Na dey won’t ax me, thank Allah” he was heard to mutter.


26 posted on 05/21/2008 5:07:00 PM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ronin

How many divisions has the Ninth Circuit?


27 posted on 05/21/2008 5:11:56 PM PDT by Loyalist (Barrister & Solicitor of Her Majesty's Courts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I think the real story here isn’t the Major’s sexuality, but the how her command came to decision to file discharge paperwork, especially with about two years to go for retirement.


28 posted on 05/21/2008 5:14:36 PM PDT by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Amen!


29 posted on 05/21/2008 5:21:06 PM PDT by mcshot (Bitterly Loving God, Family, and Guns more then ever. And greatly missing President Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I agree with the Nine Circus. If its permitted for gays to marry, then there's no reason they have who they are in the U.S military. I've always thought "don't ask, don't tell" is morally offensive. Its the equivalent of a lie and doesn't change the fact that you are who you are but you not allowed to acknowledge it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

30 posted on 05/21/2008 5:40:20 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I know it seems very easy to slap down the Ninth Circuit, and as retired military I have very grave concerns about the impact of explicit homosexual behavior on troop moral. However, the opinion seems well written and does make some valid points: WITT v. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE

It does sound like this woman kept her affairs to herself and strictly honored the "don't tell" part of the policy. All the Court has decided is that the discharge is not automatic, that judicial review of the Air Force's application of the policy in this case is appropriate (that is what Due Process means), and that it actually has to hear and decide the case based on law. That is not so bad, actually.

31 posted on 05/21/2008 5:55:04 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

I cannot see McCain being able to get any decent justice nominee through. The Senate will reject anyone he nominates, except, maybe Hillary Clinton.


32 posted on 05/21/2008 6:04:05 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jz638
how her command came to decision to file discharge paperwork, especially with about two years to go for retirement.

I am especially curious how this issue came to the attention of the Air Force since it sounds as though she kept her affairs at home and didn't "tell."

33 posted on 05/21/2008 6:10:32 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jz638
From the statement of facts in the decision "While serving in the Air Force, Major Witt never told any member of the military that she was homosexual. In July 2004, Major Witt was contacted by Major Adam Torem, who told her that he had been assigned to investigate an allegation that she was homosexual. She declined to make any statement to him."

So not only did she not violate the don't tell part of the policy, the Air Force itself violated the "don't ask" part.

34 posted on 05/21/2008 6:12:36 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

It’s amazing, isn’t it? You can serve your country without any problems for 18-years and then have the floor ripped out from under you because you’re gay. And two years before retirement benefits kick in!

Disgusting.


35 posted on 05/21/2008 6:42:05 PM PDT by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

So you don’t believe that all men are created equal?


36 posted on 05/21/2008 6:43:14 PM PDT by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: abercrombie_guy_38

Seems kinda crooked- And I’m as right wing gun nut as
anyone. Many base there ideas on homosexuality
on the Bible which is the authority I think....
But there the writer used the definate article in
reference to men.... not the ladies.....Ed


37 posted on 05/21/2008 7:33:53 PM PDT by hubel458
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: abercrombie_guy_38

All men are created equal. True. But that doesn’t allow you to do whatever you want, nor does it require society to validate deviancy. Homosexuality is not only a spiritual abomination, it’s disfunctional behavior, a social ill. Homosexuals should have the right to live their lives as they see fit, but they shouldn’t be entitled to special treatment. Sexual orientation is NOT a protected class under the US Constitution, nor should it be.

I understand many libertarians oppose any laws that legislate morality, but that’s an extremely naive position. “All men are created equal” itself involves a moral judgment. Traditional morality, including monogamous, heterosexual marriage, builds society up. Immorality tears it down.

Of course, some of you don’t care. You’d toss out any law that restrains your ability to do pretty much whatever you please, even though you will ultimately tear this society apart. Individual liberty and a free society only works when people govern themselves. What many really want is anarchy, and they are willing to do whatever necessary to have it.


38 posted on 05/21/2008 7:54:44 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Republican Who Will NOT Vote McCain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The timing on the Calf. ruling was no coincidence to this at all.


39 posted on 05/21/2008 8:06:14 PM PDT by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; Norman Bates; zendari

Whatever problems we have against John McCain, he would never knowingly appoint judges of the like who are responsible for this ruling. No one can say the same about Obama or Hillary.


40 posted on 05/21/2008 8:25:47 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Karl Marx supported free trade. Does that make him a free market conservative?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Gays simply don’t belong in the military or anywhere else people are in close contact with one another. I find it all I can do to restrain myself from committing assault at the gym when some guy is staring at me in the shower. Gays should stick to sodomizing each other and stay away from the rest of us.


41 posted on 05/21/2008 9:27:18 PM PDT by MovementConservative (John Roberts and Sam Alito.... Thank you GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Maybe the USSC will use this case to reverse Lawrence v. Texas.


42 posted on 05/21/2008 9:30:36 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

The 9th Circuit court is the most overruled by the SCOTUS.


43 posted on 05/21/2008 10:08:17 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
We have reached the point where perversion is called good and good is called evil. God save us!

Time to start building an ark and let God wipe these evil bastards off the face of the earth.

44 posted on 05/21/2008 11:24:49 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
If its permitted for gays to marry, then there's no reason they have who they are in the U.S military

There are some pretty good reasons not to allow homosexuals to serve -- like the sexual privacy of the heterosexual military personnel. I'm sure quite a few don't want to have room, shower, undress in front of or share a foxhole with someone that might have sexual attract to them.

45 posted on 05/21/2008 11:30:32 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
I cannot see McCain being able to get any decent justice nominee through. The Senate will reject anyone he nominates, except, maybe Hillary Clinton.

A conservative President might consider letting the Democrats keep rejecting nominees and let the vacancies linger if the justices that retire are liberal ones. Unfortunately, McCain isn't a conservative.

46 posted on 05/21/2008 11:34:23 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MovementConservative

wow. just wow. There is nothing I can type to rebut your arguments more than saying that and noting that it’s not a compliment in any way.


47 posted on 05/22/2008 2:22:33 AM PDT by jz638
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny; All
"One would assume that this can be appealed to the USSC, where at the moment they usually understand what the Constitution is."

Only until "president" Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama (PBUH) gets a chance to nominate three or four justices, after which the 9th Circuit will look conservative in comparison.

48 posted on 05/22/2008 2:58:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary or Obama can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MovementConservative; ThePythonicCow; CitizenUSA; Ronin; Enchante; Congressman Billybob; ...
Section 7 of Article 1 in our Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of our armed forces.

Certain rights and privileges in the military have always been curtailed.

It thus seems to me that an argument can be made that the courts do not have jurisdiction over rules regarding homosexuality.

49 posted on 05/22/2008 4:38:08 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Tyrants should fear for their personal safety.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Yes ... I doubt they have jurisdiction.
50 posted on 05/22/2008 4:46:04 AM PDT by ThePythonicCow (By their false faith in Man as God, the left would destroy us. They call this faith change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson