Skip to comments.Judge rejects Obama's 'don't ask, don't tell' argument
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 ...
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!!
Here come the desertions,the drop in recruitments...then the DRAFT!
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.
For me it comes down to troop morale. If this weakens troop morale, then no.
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.
Basic issue here: there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military. None.
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.
As if the 0bama justice dept would put forward the best arguments...
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
I wonder if the fed’s brief was written in crayons.
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.