Posted on 10/12/2010 1:06:43 PM PDT by maddog55
Edited on 10/12/2010 1:19:20 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling issued Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“I have a real problem with the courts having any say on how the military is run.”
I have that same problem. Amazing how these libs view the military as just another social experiment.
She said the policy violates due process rights, freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Yeah, right. What Fudge Virginia Phillips did was repeal the portion of Article I Section 8 which gives Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."
We used to be a republic.
It’s like I said in 11/08 - we have 1-party rule now. They own us.
So if DADT is thrown out, doesn’t that mean we revert to the former policy, which was (to paraphrase) “no gays, no way” in the military?
Another white woman in self-destruct mode; attempting to get even with white males and the rest of society.
Being homosexual is an identity and psychosis issue and not a physiological condition!
This is how our Constitution has been undone, and legislation that lawmakers are afraid to pass for fear of election consequences are now relegated to the Robed Robbers, who are not subject to re-election, in most cases, and thereby legislate from the Bench with impunity.
Unless some overhaul is done to stop this insanity, NO Law will be effectual. Even in cases where the people of a State have passed via referendum such Laws or Constitutional Amendments that they want, Judges have usurped The People's right by ruling them in favor of special interests and THEIR interpretation of tortured readings of the Law.
God help us.
If this judge can just say that DADT is no longer the law of the land, then why can we not find a conservative federal judge say that Obamacare is now defunct as well?
What would stop a fed judge from doing that?
“accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not”
“Could not,” or did not? Who says Obama was trying that hard? Maybe he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Couldn’t he simply issue an executrive order?
By the way, what part of the Constitution did it violate? The 57th amendment’s guarantee of the right to be gay and tell people about it while in the military?
I'm sure the military is quaking in fear over this.
“’World wide injunction’? Really?”
It’s a weird way to put it, but I guess we do have troops around the world, don’t we?
Does any other government entity (i.e. DoD) have the ability to file an appeal other than the POTUS through DOJ?
What if, not likely to happen, a serious number of senior folk at DoD said, “no way until congress legislates or the Supreme Court rules...”?
No you aren’t, the judge is. This is a clear example of a judge taking a case that is beyond his realm, and I use the word realm advisedly. He thinks, like too many judges that he should be able to take a case, perhaps that of someone who lives within his geographical jusidiction and rule for all the world. He is telling Congress that the law they passed is null and void. If every judge did this we would have anarchy.
Arrrgh!
How?!? Ending the DADT policy would mean reverting back to the federal law, which explicitly bans homosexuals from the military. Yes?
Did the judge overturn the LAW? Or did the judge overturn the DADT Clinton executive policy?
Can somebody unpack this for me?
http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
3/22/2010 1:03:00 PM
At a March 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, two former service members who had been discharged for homosexuality focused their testimony on their own personal stories. The third witness, retired Marine General John Sheehan, came across as a credible grown-up with more serious concerns on his mind.
Having served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (1994-1997), Gen. Sheehan was uniquely qualified to provide strong testimony that weakened the claims of civilian gay activists who want America’s military to be more like European forces.
Referring to the military officials from nations that Sheehan led as NATO commander, Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked whether the general had discussed the issue with them. “Did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?” Much to Levin’s surprise, Sheehan answered “Yes” and proceeded to provide details.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, Sheehan said, European nations began focusing on peacekeeping because “they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other European nations came to believe that there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries. “They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that included the unionization of their militaries; it included open homosexuality.”
He continued,
“That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I am referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the [Bosnian] Muslims off, and executed them. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II.” 1
Chairman Levin asked whether Dutch leaders had told the general that the inclusion of homosexuals had contributed to the military debacle. Unlike some news reports’ descriptions, Gen. Sheehan chose his words carefully, saying that commanders he had spoken to “included that as part of the problem…. [T]he combination was the liberalization of the military, a net effect, basically of social engineering.” 2
I think it could but it would be better if Obama did not have 60 days to appeal. If he had to appeal by the end of the week, that would be a story.
You must serve with some odd dogs. What you describe is not the armed forces I have (very recently) served in.
Maybe its a navy thing.
Being an open “gay” is most definitely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Warriors are manly - neither female nor gay. And the armed forces that I want to protect me and my family is an army of warriors. Anything less is a social experiment that has nothing to do with winning wars.
It looks like we are well on our way...I was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine who is in law school...and he just didn’t see my problem and why I am “so hung up on the enumerated powers thing.”
The judicial branch has no authority to tell the armed forces, a branch of the executive, how it should maintain its esprit de corp.
However, seeing as how the current leader of the executive branch sees the world in the exact same terms as this liberal judge, expect the WH to issue an order that the judge's ruling is to be followed in all particulars.
Now a nation of petty tyrants and tyrannies.
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.