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

Skip to comments.

Judge rejects Obama's 'don't ask, don't tell' argument
McClatchy Newspapers ^ | October 20, 2010 | Nancy A. Youssef

Posted on 10/20/2010 12:18:53 PM PDT by ColdOne

WASHINGTON — A district court judge Tuesday rejected the Obama administration's claims that allowing gays and lesbians to begin openly

(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; dadt; dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; obamalegacy; selectednotelected; shadowgovernment; unelected

1 posted on 10/20/2010 12:18:57 PM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Obama gets what he wants: and has plausible deniability that he didn’t drop DADT. Unexpected.

THE JUDGE MADE ME DO IT. HERE COME THE JUDGE, HERE COME THE JUDGE!!


2 posted on 10/20/2010 12:25:06 PM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Here come the desertions,the drop in recruitments...then the DRAFT!


3 posted on 10/20/2010 12:29:00 PM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
I don't know where I come down on this issue. Not gay, think it's aberrant behavior and a sin, myself.

The 'rightness' of the issue aside, we are left with the Constitution and what really is the effect on the military? Since the defense of this country really is a charge given to our government with respect to protecting us by the Constitution, what exactly trumps what? Seems to me it's an issue of personal Constitutional Rights posed against a collective right of the country to stay protected, according to the Constitution.

So, how is it resolved? Whose input is most important? Just a wild guess, but I'd put a lot of import to what the Defense Department says, not Obama - he's just between a rock and a hard place right now.

4 posted on 10/20/2010 12:30:29 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profiling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

For me it comes down to troop morale. If this weakens troop morale, then no.


5 posted on 10/20/2010 12:42:13 PM PDT by ColdOne (GOP. Gutless Old Politicians :^))...../When Obama fails America Wins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

It’s an absurd and dangerous situation when some political hack in a black robe, sitting in a district court, can reverse a military policy of many years. Maybe next some district judge will start issuing orders to field commanders.


6 posted on 10/20/2010 12:44:35 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Basic issue here: there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. None.

Colonel, USAFR


7 posted on 10/20/2010 12:44:55 PM PDT by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
I don't know where I come down on this issue.

I do. This Judge should be impeached for exceeding her Constitutional authority. Under the Constitution Congress has the express, enumerated power to make rules for the conduct of the Military, not Federal judges.

If Congress changes the law, then so be it. But they haven't.

8 posted on 10/20/2010 12:46:46 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

As if the 0bama justice dept would put forward the best arguments...


9 posted on 10/20/2010 12:49:52 PM PDT by Guyin4Os (A messianic ger-tsedek)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; All
Uh, is it just me, or did the U.S. Constitution just cease to exist. There is a litle section which goes like this...

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

That's it. No judges. No appeals. No nonsense. The PRESIDENT determines which policies are best for the operation and cohesion of the armed forces. Period. Why does anyone care what some judge thinks about gay liberation theory? Obama should just teach America a civics lesson and remind the judge he has no such jurisdiction.

10 posted on 10/20/2010 12:52:45 PM PDT by montag813 (http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

WAht are you talking about? The Defense Department in rife with namby pamby little bed-wetters and it’s PC run amuck in that outfit. All troops are inundated with same PC “training” ad nausem. It’s why the Fort Hood terrorist was able to pull off mass murder.

Is every rule and prudent idea run through the prism of the Constitution? NO gays in the military is a matter of national security. If you can’t see why, I can’t help you.


11 posted on 10/20/2010 12:56:28 PM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Uh, is it just me, or did the U.S. Constitution just cease to exist. There is a litle section which goes like this... The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States That's it. No judges. No appeals. No nonsense. The PRESIDENT determines which policies are best for the operation and cohesion of the armed forces. Period. Why does anyone care what some judge thinks about gay liberation theory? Obama should just teach America a civics lesson and remind the judge he has no such jurisdiction. This way he gets to vote "present"
12 posted on 10/20/2010 1:04:56 PM PDT by ColdOne (GOP. Gutless Old Politicians :^))...../When Obama fails America Wins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

“For me it comes down to troop morale. If this weakens troop morale, then no.”

Of course it’s hurting troop morale. We now have to follow leaders making serious ethical decisions who can’t tell right from wrong.


13 posted on 10/20/2010 1:09:51 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

re: “So, how is it resolved? Whose input is most important? Just a wild guess, but I’d put a lot of import to what the Defense Department says, not Obama - he’s just between a rock and a hard place right now.”

This whole gay-rights issue is not about “marraige” or “serving in the military” - this is all about homosexuality being “accepted” as normal. This is about using the law to intimidate/force everyone into acceptance. Not tolerance - acceptance. Once all these pieces are in place - i.e. marriage, adoptions, military service - no one will be able to say anything against homosexuality in any context - not religious nor in any other way.

Our nation, if we allow this to stand, is doomed to destruction. Our people have allowed the slaughter of the innocent unborn, the institution of marraige to be shredded beyond recognition, and now homosexuality openly practiced and praised. We are in serious, serious, trouble my fellow Americans.

There is a quote on a statute of Thomas Jefferson that reads, “I tremble for my country, when I remember that God is Just.” God help us.


14 posted on 10/20/2010 1:10:42 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
“For me it comes down to troop morale. If this weakens troop morale, then no.” Of course it’s hurting troop morale. We now have to follow leaders making serious ethical decisions who can’t tell right from wrong. The left has been trying to destroy the Military for years. They may have done it now.
15 posted on 10/20/2010 1:14:52 PM PDT by ColdOne (GOP. Gutless Old Politicians :^))...../When Obama fails America Wins!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

What type of personnel are going to provide for the best defense is the overriding concern.

If the military becomes part of some social experiment, then why aren’t we considering the rights of the handicapped to serve on the battlefield? The rights of the elderly?

I’ll throw this out for resolution: how about segregating the gays from the non-gays as different units that will never have common officers below the rank of Brigadier General. Same set of rules, including fraternization. Evaluate performance over some long period of time whether or not to consider continuing this nonsense. I suspect that the “Fighting Faggots” unit will fail miserably due to poor discipline and poor recruitment. This will put the whole issue to bed.


16 posted on 10/20/2010 1:19:39 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

And the reason behind their big push for and desire for societal acceptance is that they have this internal voice, their conscience, telling them “your behavior is wrong, repent”.

They think this is because of “societal norms” and if they could just change those societal norms, then they wouldn’t feel guilty anymore. Too bad there’s no way to prove this to them.

And the left is using this desire of theirs to further their agenda of the destruction of traditional values (Christianity).

The military agenda is even scarier.
As the military IS, it would be difficult to order them to fire on citizens/Christians in this country. But when you introduce open homos, and make criticism of homos a punishable offense, you’re going to drive the conservatives out.
A military without Christians and conservatives will fire on civilians and Christians.


17 posted on 10/20/2010 1:20:22 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete
There is something wrong with a system that lets one liberal moon-bat judge render a decision that has huge consequences for the country. This needs to be changed.
18 posted on 10/20/2010 1:28:38 PM PDT by liberalcide1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

“Basic issue here: there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. None.”

That didn’t stop our morally comprimised leaders at the Pentagon. What’s happened to Honor?


19 posted on 10/20/2010 1:30:45 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

I wonder if the fed’s brief was written in crayons.


20 posted on 10/20/2010 1:31:40 PM PDT by Avid Coug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Under the Constitution Congress has the express, enumerated power to make rules for the conduct of the Military, not Federal judges.

Where is that listed among the enumerated powers of Congress?

21 posted on 10/20/2010 1:32:20 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

As an Army Veteran, I can tell you that this can do absolutely no good. 90% of the active Armed Forces would tell you the same thing.
It is simply mind-blowingly retarded to allow open homosexuals to serve.


22 posted on 10/20/2010 1:34:24 PM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
It is simply mind-blowingly retarded to allow open homosexuals to serve.

Why?

23 posted on 10/20/2010 1:36:11 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

“The left has been trying to destroy the Military for years. They may have done it now.”

They’ve made progress. Rather than the nation’s defense, we are now a “global force for good.” Diversity, gree energy and other U.N. initiatives are now the main focuses.


24 posted on 10/20/2010 1:36:20 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak; All

Good! Got the proverbial grenade in the tent reaction. It’s either a moral or a protection issue. When there is the potential that some segment of the ‘protection’ side will suffer, incur reduced effectiveness or leave service, the charge by the Constitution is arguably not optimum. Then, the collective right to protection (Constitution) outweighs an individual ‘right,’ morally dubious at best. Without keeping the most basic needs of the country sure, individual rights don’t matter much; they’d get relegated to the history books of whatever tyrant in power dictates.


25 posted on 10/20/2010 1:45:52 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profiling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Let me give just 1 very simple example. I could give more, but this one means the most to me.
I was an Infantryman.Especially in the Infantry soldiers are in very close contact with one another. We help eachother take showers in the field by holding a poncho up for a buddy so the world wouldn’t see them. we spens a lot of time in foxholes and cramped conditions together. At times we have to take showers and even sit on the toilet in open area’s together where everyone can see you.
For the simple fact that if you allow homosexuals in, you would in fact add an entire new level of privacy to a place that doesn’t need it. It’s free porn for the gay, or they would have to shower with women. The women wouldn’t like it and many guys would be lining up to shower with the women. I changed my clothes inside the small confines of a vehicle many times around my squad. I wouldn’t do that if I knew 1 of them was gay. He would have to leave and then come back. Special bathrooms, special circustances, all completely unnecessary, and a huge waste of money and effort for such a tiny minority. It just does not make any sense at all.


26 posted on 10/20/2010 1:51:26 PM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Where is that listed among the enumerated powers of Congress?

Right there in Article 1, Section 8: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

You might want to try reading it sometime.

27 posted on 10/20/2010 1:51:29 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Right there in Article 1, Section 8: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

You're right ... I skipped right by it.

28 posted on 10/20/2010 1:53:46 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

No problem. The Senate should be convening an Impeachment for this judge.


29 posted on 10/20/2010 2:14:05 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Quit whining.
Never should the minority ever have the right of tyrrany over the majority, which is exactly what this is.
Shoot, lets just let someone in a wheelchair in the Army! Wouldn’t want them to feeeeeeel bad. Wouldn’t matter that everyone else would have to pull extra weight, jump through extra hoops.
Nope lets, just let everyone in. As a matter of fact, lets just drop all standards. No more Physical requirments, because of you don’t pass a PT test, you might feeeel bad and the vast minority of people fail the PT test, but hey, who am I to judge right?
Your’s is a BS argument if I have ever heard one.


30 posted on 10/20/2010 2:20:18 PM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Col. Allen West responds to your question. (LINK)
31 posted on 10/20/2010 3:11:55 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer; All

“Seems to me it’s an issue of personal Constitutional Rights posed against a collective right of the country to stay protected, according to the Constitution.”

Seems strange to me that the constitution was well over 150 years along before anyone considered that homosexuals derived a “special status” protection by it. Other than the basic right to not be assaulted or criminally abused, I don’t see that homosexuals have any other rights under the COTUS. As long as there has been a U.S. military, homosexuality was never allowed....goodness even in the Revolutionary War George Washington had homosexuals removed from the Army.


32 posted on 10/20/2010 3:46:12 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
even in the Revolutionary War George Washington had homosexuals removed from the Army.

How exactly did he remove them?

33 posted on 10/20/2010 4:01:39 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate: Republicans freed the slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

I think that it would be better to understand what a “right” is. I am disabled, there is no right for me in some circumstances to serve, this includes the military. The military is not a place for the rest of the troops to hold my hand or carry me around, it would place the other soldiers in serious danger to have to take care of me. Now, while I do perform great in other ways, that’s fine, but I do not by any means have some special entitlement to get into the military, and I have my honorable excusal from serving, especially in combat duty.

As far as you asking for examples, I have some, but those of us on FreeRepublic could tell you better from the military experience. In the military, you have little privacy with other men, or others of the same gender. You share rooms, you shower together, etc. The last thing you need is to add additional special privacy obstacles to provide for someone who is gay. The last thing you need when you are in serious combat duty is insecurity about your fellow soldiers who you are in close quarters with most of the time.

Again, take the word of someone on FreeRepublic who serves in the military over mine, they’ve got the actual experience.


34 posted on 10/20/2010 5:21:59 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER; All

You asked how did General Washington deal with homosexuals in his Army:

“While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military’s inception. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:

“At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.”

General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.


35 posted on 10/20/2010 6:53:35 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
Again, take the word of someone on FreeRepublic who serves in the military over mine, they’ve got the actual experience.

Does my 8 years plus count then?

36 posted on 10/21/2010 2:54:10 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profiling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I was a sergeant too. I don’t need to hear COL West’s remarks, I can make up my own mind.


37 posted on 10/21/2010 2:55:29 PM PDT by Gaffer ("Profiling: The only profile I need is a chalk outline around their dead ass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
I continue to look upon the complete brainwashing of our population. Oh, the Constitution is living, breathing, evolving, repeat it ten times and swallow tyranny from a judge or judges.

The entire history of our country and its Constitution have never hinted at purposely allowing judges the right to rewrite the Constitution according to their personal view of morality and reality.

The actions by the judge from the start has been nothing less than illegal legislation by a lawless judge who actually cares nothing about the real Constitution.

38 posted on 10/21/2010 10:27:55 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (undo all judicial activism and its results)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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