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]
I wonder how the federal courts will get around the jurisdiction issue.
Since when does First Amendment rights apply to the military? It is not exactly the way I remember it.
What are the chances, this will extend to people that demand to see obama’s birth certificate?
I believe you are correct.
If not, it means that Phillips is openly making law, a clear usurpation of the Congress.
A real President would ignore and openly defy her ruling. Force a so-called Constitutional crisis and make the left explain why pole smokers have a right to serve. She has no legitimate power to make the rules governing our Armed Forces.
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?
Simple. DOJ would only appeal decisions they disagree with, which would include Obamacare. It's like Schwarzenegger and Brown's refusal to appeal the decision that overturned the portion of the California constitution that defines marriage. Like the case in California, who would have standing to appeal this ruling if DOJ refuses?
Sounds like free speech and due process rights. I'm not buying due process, but I can actually see some merit in the free speech part.
A soldier when out of uniform and acting as an individual does have a right to free speech. Don't Ask Don't Tell allows gays in the military as long as they keep quiet about it. This isn't the leaking of confidential government information. This is the soldiers personal business, and it does seem like an infringement on their free speech to tell them they must keep quiet on the subject even on their own time.
I believe the government does have the authority to ban gays from the military. However, if you let them join, you have to accept that they do still have some essential rights even as soldiers.
Don't Ask Don't Tell is an absolutely horrible law and probably should be tossed out. Since the part that appears unconstitutional is the prohibition on them speaking about it, the injunction does appear to be a rational way to address it. I wonder if that was part of its author's design. A flawed compromise to get in the door, and then use the flaw to keep the door open.
Me too. However, our soldiers do still have rights. The first amendment prohibits our government from infringing on their right to free speech. The law doesn't ban gays from the military, it prohibits them from talking about it, even on their own time, out of uniform, and away from their duties.
I believe the government has the authority to ban gays from the military. However, allowing them as long as they keep it a secret has constitutional issues. It also opens up gay members of our military to blackmail. It is and always was a very stupid law.
How are all of the probable November 2 election political changes going to, also, help change all of the ongoing judicial activism, at every judicial level?
ignore this stupid ruling and tell that damn judge to go F herself .
Civilian judged commanding our entire military to dance to their gay mafia liberal edicts ? Yea right ....ignore it entirely
Not quite sure there is such a concept when it comes to Government Issue personnel.....
There was a balance of power until MEN (and some women) decided that by their “lofty” station, they have the right to dictate law and behavior. This is tyranny.
In Dana Carvey’s Church Lady voice “How Conveeeeenient?” To tell the military who their bunk buddies are just in time that their absentee ballots won’t count.
Let me educate you. When you get sworn into the military YOU GIVE UP ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Your rights as such now fall under the UCMJ only. An Officer can make a sailor or soldier work tell they die, get it. They can make a junior officer fly an almost suicide mission, get it yet? The can make non-com platoon sargeant "hold their position" knowing they are going to be overrun and probably all die, still don't get it? Constitutional rights? Are f-ing kidding?
Did the judge overturn the LAW? Or did the judge overturn the DADT Clinton executive policy?
I think you're on to something here. It seems that if the judge only banned the policy, the military is now required to ask about sexual preference.
Wouldn't it be nice to see the Law of Unintended Consequences play out against the libs this time?
The demons are goaded.
So they can ask, now? Like they used to do? /rhetorical
How do people halt such policy without any irreversible damage on the part of the person who comes out? I mean, if the gay person comes out, that’s it. The whole world know that s/he is gay. If the military (or rather, the government) win in the SCOTUS, those people cannot set the time back to before they came out, can they?
Them in what Army?
Stop worrying about the poofters, this is ALL POLITICAL.
Rap song:
If it is too stressful staying incognito about your homosexual libido then how can a queer person like that be trusted in real combat
They are still people. They have personal opinions. When representing the military, their personal opinions must take back seat to the policies of the military. However, unless it involves disclosing restricted information, they have a right to their own opinions as long as they clearly state them as such and don't go around doing something like protesting in uniform.
The problem is that the law explicitly allows gays to join the military. If gays being in the military is so subversive that they cannot be talked about, then they should be banned outright. The rights of individuals should never be restricted by the government without a compelling reason. If there isn't a compelling interest to ban them from military service, what is the compelling reason to restrict their first amendment right to talk about it? The law undermines itself. Considering under what administration it was passed, I suspect that flaw was intentional, but it is still flawed.
Knowing how poorly this law was written, those opposing it should have insisted that the law explicitly state that it could not be severed on constitutional grounds. Either it was left whole, or things reverted to the original state of gays being banned. Congress had to know this law was susceptible to having the prohibition on gays stripped on appeal. They passed it in its flawed form anyway.
No, I’m not worrying about them. I’m just wondering about the impact of a decision like this by lower-level judges, both in this case and in general.
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.