Posted on 09/24/2010 4:52:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
DADT is Federal law. This GW Bush appointee does have jurisdiction there.
We do know the circumstances of her outing - the husband of her civilian lover dropped a dime on her.
A non military judge has no say over military regulations.
Like it or not, a Federal judge does have ‘say’ over the Federal law upon which the military DADT regs are based. Our military didn’t come up with DADT on their own - it was imposed upon them by Congress.
This case has been in the courts for 4 years, and litigated by the DOJ of both the Bush and Obama admins. Neither admin has suggested that the Federal courts do not have jurisdiction.
Section 8, Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Where in there does it state that a judge can disagree? Are you ready for the lawsuits against the military regulations that will happen if this is allowed to stand? Congress declined to repeal DADT. Are you ready for black robed tyrants to rule in military regulations from the bench? There is no Constitutional provision for that.
Judicial review is not a particularly new concept.
Are you ready for the lawsuits against the military regulations that will happen if this is allowed to stand?
The 'Witt standard' is already the law of the land in the Western US (9th Circuit), since the Obama admin chose not to appeal the 9th's decision in Witt. The suits are upon us now.
DADT will be history by the end of 2011.
The Constitution does not provide for that concerning the armed forces.
Show me where it gives the caveat that Congress can regulate the armed forces upon the approval of a judge?
DADT will be history by the end of 2011.
Not if citizens win the next election.
The second law of Homosexuality:
To the mentally healthy (heterosexual), sex is something you do.
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual'), sex is everything you are.
Their entire self worth and self image is bound up in their sexual perversion. Without having their sexual perversion known and accepted they have no self worth whatsoever. Therefore they must broadcast their perversions and try to force the rest of the world to say that black is white and white is black and what they are doing is OK.
One recruiter never had trouble making his quota. He would turn in the papers for background checks for “Tom ONES”, then after they came back clean, add the “J” to “ONES”. Later, when we put the fellow in for a security clearance after he got to his unit the local record check would find the guy had a rapsheet that was several 3 by 5 cards long. (each charge was one line on a 3 x 5 card). And so we would give him a dischage. More work for us, and our infantry units had 3 man squads in 1979. Thanks Jimmy C.
One recruiter never had trouble making his quota. He would turn in the papers for background checks for “Tom ONES”, then after they came back clean, add the “J” to “ONES”. Later, when we put the fellow in for a security clearance after he got to his unit the local record check would find the guy had a rapsheet that was several 3 by 5 cards long. (each charge was one line on a 3 x 5 card). And so we would give him a dischage. More work for us, and our infantry units had 3 man squads in 1979. Thanks Jimmy C.
I listen to Mark Levin, and stop whatever I’m doing to listen to Ray Charles sing “America” at the end of the Friday progam. It carries me away to another time.
As all this corruption oozes to the surface it brings on a grief beyond words.
It’s a sense of betrayal that we have put our hopes in an ideal I’m not sure ever existed.
More and more I understand that the only hope that does not disapoint is hope and trust in our unchanging God.
Whatever the maximum penalty for Adultery is under the UCMJ - it should be applied to her/him/it."You agree that adultery is not consistent with high standards of integrity, correct?" Phipps asked.
"Yes," Witt responded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/margaret-witt-dont-ask-dont-tell-trial-it-kills-me_n_732264.html
You know what Bill? You’re right. And I never caught the adultery aspect. Thanks for pointing it out.
No problem.
Reinstate her - then immediately arrest and charge her under the same articles of the UCMJ as would apply to a heterosexual service member. Should be good for a couple of years in Leavenworth, along with a Dishonorable Discharge instead of a General.
Thanks for the links. I appreciate the discussion.
However, Witt has not gone to the SCOTUS, so it only holds in the 9th Circuit for now. When it does, the Court will likely turn to this case which they affirmed on grounds of the compelling need to preserve good order and discipline in the Armed Forces. The 9th does have quite a record of being overturned.
If they take away DADT they will take away the original ban along with it or the Left will be assaulted with much very public wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left. Judges will also deem that eliminating DADT also eliminats the original ban on the theory that just promulgating(it was never “passed”) DADT repealed the original ban. When the government does not appeal decisions then a lower court ruling is the same as a USSC ruling in effect.
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.