BREAKING: Supreme Court will NOT vacate 9th Circuit stay on DADT; gay ban still in effect

November 12, 2010 at 11:57 am 94 comments

By Eden James

SCOTUSblog has the details:

The Supreme Court, without noting any dissent, agreed on Friday to leave the military’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy in effect while its constitutionality is under review in lower courts. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred the issue to the full Court. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the order.

The order means the policy will remain in effect at least through March, unless Congress repeals it — an unlikely prospect.

As to Kagan’s recusal:

When the Pietrangelo petition was before the Court, Elena Kagan, then U.S. Solicitor General, opposed review, saying that case was “an unsuitable vehicle” for the Court to use to review “don’t ask/don’t tell.” Kagan, of course, is now a member of the Supreme Court. Kagan was not yet in office as Solicitor General in February 2009 when the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to give it more time to pursue an appeal of a major Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the policy — the Circuit Court’s ruling in Witt v. Department the Air Force. Although the Administration was given until May to file such a petition, it opted not to do so. Kagan was sworn in as Solicitor General on March 20, 2009; it is not known whether she took part in the government decision at that time not to appeal that case.

Statement from Alex Nicholson at Servicemembers United:

“It is unfortunate that an unconstitutional law that is causing substantial harm to military readiness and to tens of thousands of troops is allowed to remain in effect for even one more day,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the only named veteran plaintiff in the case. “This just underscores the need to continue to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow the defense authorization bill to come back up and take its first procedural step before the Senate’s Thanksgiving recess. Servicemembers United, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Stonewall Democrats, and the Log Cabin Republicans have all strongly and consistently called on Senator Reid to do just that. It is now time for other organizations, as well as the White House, to publicly do the same.”

Scribd doc below:

View this document on Scribd

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: Statements from R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, and Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing LCR in the case:

“Log Cabin Republicans are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to maintain the status quo with regards to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but we are not surprised,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. “We are committed to pursuing every avenue in the fight against this failed and unconstitutional policy. Log Cabin will continue working to secure the votes needed for legislative repeal, and if necessary, we look forward to seeing President Obama’s attorneys in court next year to prove, once again, that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ doesn’t work.”

“We are disappointed by the Court’s ruling to deny our application to vacate the stay by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,” said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans. “With the likelihood of Congress repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ fading with each passing day, judicial relief continues to be perhaps the most viable avenue for ending this unconstitutional policy. We and Log Cabin Republicans will continue to fight on to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans who want to serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation. Our next step will be to ask the Ninth Circuit to expedite the government’s appeal from Judge Phillips’s judgment and injunction.”

Entry filed under: DADT trial.

VIDEO: Cindy McCain connects the dots between bullying and DADT Bigoted radio host attacks Joel Burns for his #ItGetsBetter message to gay teens

94 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Phillip R  |  November 12, 2010 at 11:59 am

    First! YESSSSSS!

    Sad face though. :(

    Reply
    • 2. JonT  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      :( Sad face too. But I can’t really say I am surprised.

      Reply
      • 3. Ann S.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:10 pm

        No, not surprised. But yes, sad face.

        :(

        Reply
  • 4. Kathleen  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Quick subscribe, then off to monitor vote count in L.A. County.

    Reply
    • 5. Ann S.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:10 pm

      Hooray for Kathleen for monitoring the count of the votes for AG!

      Reply
    • 6. anonygrl  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Go Kathleen! Go Kathleen!

      Reply
    • 7. Rhie  |  November 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm

      w00t!

      Reply
  • 8. Michelle Evans  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    The comments in a news story I just read about this sad news had some jerk saying the following (standard anti-LGBT garbage):

    Having served for 21 years I can tell you that I am very much against this—practicing homosexuals have no place in our military. What is the difference between sharing shower/bathroom facilities with homosexuals and just making everything co-ed? It is just not right. So what do they want–Facilities for Men, Women, and Others? Get fricken real. If you ever shared a foxhole, you dont want to worry about your own back.

    To which I posted the following reply:

    The problem with your assessment of the situation is that when you served in the military, there were already gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals serving beside you. They have been a part of the military since the beginning. I know because I served in the US Air Force for a many years and I did so honorably, while at the same time, I happen to be one of those you so highly fear. Yet, amazingly, the country did not collapse, nor has it done so with the approximately 66,000 such individuals currently in uniform, or the estimated over 1 million such individuals who have previously served.

    Reply
    • 9. Mouse  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:12 pm

      What idiotic logic.

      When a man says he cannot shower with a gay man for fear of being raped, what he means is “I am a rapist, and would rape any woman who had the audacity to get naked where I had an opportunity to rape her,” and he assumes that all people are as sick and broken as he is.

      Most people aren’t rapists.

      Reply
      • 10. Steve  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        Statistically, it far more likely for a female soldier to be raped by a male one than to be killed or wounded in action.

        The amount of sexual assault and rape in the US military is ridiculously high. So high that there are official recommendations to not go outside alone at night for example. In fact DADT fosters that. Threatening to out victims as lesbians (rightly or wrongly) is pretty common. In fact there are straight women who have been investigated and even discharged.

        Reply
        • 11. fiona64  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm

          Fully one-third of female service members will be raped at some point during their time in uniform — most of the time at the hands of their fellow service members.

          DADT protects the homophobes, just like the military protects the male rapists and blames the victims.

          Feh.

          Reply
          • 12. Mouse  |  November 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm

            I just can’t even get my head around that.

            Am I really that deviant for only being attracted to sexual partners who are willing?

        • 13. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 13, 2010 at 12:53 am

          Here’s a thought I had: wouldn’t a lot of female military personnel feel safer knowing they could turn to a gay friend in their unit if they feared becoming a victim of sexual assault? I hope I’m not engaging in a twist on the Will and Grace stereotype, but it seems like a natural alliance that might form to fend off unsavory characters.

          Reply
          • 14. Ronnie  |  November 13, 2010 at 6:16 am

            Oh no…you are correct the GBF is one of the strongest friendship bonds…<3…Ronnie

          • 15. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  November 13, 2010 at 7:47 am

            My female friends and I have long had each other’s backs when it comes to men. In fact, I have had troubles in the past with my own relationships when I did not listen to these women, and yet I was able to spot men that would be good for them and let them know when someone was trouble for them. When 24 out of 24 told me what they thought of BZ, I listened. And now I am getting nervous with the wedding only 5 days away.

          • 16. Steve  |  November 13, 2010 at 8:30 am

            Not just that. But I see more general bonding between straight women and gay men, and gay women and straight men. Just talking about relationships and stuff. Thus increasing cohesion.

    • 17. nightshayde  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm

      I would almost be willing to bet he’s one of those sexist pigs who thinks that any woman who rejects his advances MUST be a lesbian.

      Why he thinks that any self-respecting gay man (or straight woman) would be attracted to a knuckle-dragging homophobic neanderthal like him escapes me.

      Reply
  • 18. Mouse  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    If every LGBT in the military came out today, DADT would cripple our military by distracting from real threats to security so we could waste time discriminating and discharging honorable men and women. And then we would be weaker for the loss of those servicemen and women.

    If DADT were gone, there would be no issue at all. Our military would go on doing what it does with absolutely no impact.

    Reply
    • 19. Bob  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      Mouse, it’s an interesting predicament , If every LGBT in the military came out today,,,, I think if that was a possiblity it would certainly end DADT but not every member wants to serve openly,,,,,,,,,

      I sometimes think it’s us who want it more than they, there are probably a lot who prefer to hide and wish we would drop this issue.

      That complicates the process,

      the LGBT community is divided those members in the service don’t speak with one voice, regarding DADT

      the LGBT community does not speak with one voice regardign SSM

      the people on the P8TT site speak with one voice regarding these issues, and we’re speaking to ourselves.

      Reply
      • 20. Steve  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm

        “there are probably a lot who prefer to hide and wish we would drop this issue.”

        I seriously doubt it. Yes, a good number won’t come out. At least not right away. But they’d certainly want the assurance that if somebody finds out, they won’t be fired.

        Reply
        • 21. Bob  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm

          Then return to the first premise, if LGBT service members stood up at once and came out that would end DADT. it would be over, because people would refuse to abide by an unconstiutional rule, which has no force in law, unless they themselves give it that force. They can free themselves. and it would only take a substantial number , who have the guts,

          Reply
          • 22. Steve  |  November 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

            In theory that would be the ideal course of action. It just doesn’t work in practice. For the simple reason that they aren’t organized. There are some underground networks, but they have a few hundred members at most. You can’t coordinate them coming out all at once – as nice as the idea may be.

          • 23. Bob  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:10 pm

            would it have to be all at once???? even a few hundred woud break DADT.

            we all know you can’t force the timiing on coming out for those who are not ready, but there;s got to be someone who is on the verge of breaking the code of silence, a selfless act, coming out to honor oneself is not easy, and the price is high, considering the loss, often for teens it can be devastaing , losing family supports being homeless. the military has added costs of losing a job.

            coming out in the mllitary would indeed defy all odds, piss on you, I’m serving openly or not at all. there is a price to pay for that honor. a job for your honor, where do you place your value???

  • 24. Phillip R  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    I’ve seen some of the most ridiculous comments on news articles.

    For example, a serving soldier said that he worries that when guys are open that he’s going to suddenly get raped. He’ll say he’s not interested but then at some other time, the homosexual will have weapons and he’d be too scared to say No then.

    Weird logic.

    Reply
    • 25. TomTallis  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:10 pm

      It’s all about their fear. Such cowardly people have no place in a well run military.

      Reply
    • 26. Ann S.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      As opposed to now, when those closeted gay men all use their weapons to rape him? How will their being open suddenly make them rapists? Ridiculous.

      Reply
    • 27. Mouse  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm

      Because when he tells a woman he thinks she is hot and she tells him to go away, he comes back with weapons so that she’s too scared to say no?

      Reply
      • 28. Steve  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        Nope. He accuses her of being a lesbian. It’s called “lesbian baiting”.

        Reply
    • 29. atty79  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm

      Sounds like someone who would “hate” to be “forced” to do something he’s been secretly desiring for some time! Based on that logic, women should have never been allowed to serve in the military because now they have weapons and could rape the men, or vice versa.

      Reply
    • 30. Ronnie  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:15 pm

      That serving soldier is clearly not mentally stable to serve in the armed services….& not a real man either…is this the kind of knuckle draggers that serve?….oooo I’m scared of being hit on by a openly Gay man…That homophobe is a (enter another word for cat here)…but I bet he has no problem with a straight man hitting another straight man on the @ss, bare palm to bare a$$…I was on the track team..saw it all time in the locker room….I hold no faith in a soldier who is more afraid of Gay man then he is of a bullet or a bomb…pathetic… : / ….Ronnie

      Reply
      • 31. Alyson  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:15 pm

        Hey Ronnie,

        I always admire your fire but it’s a sock in the gut when people refer to someone acting loathsome as a p&@@y. I assume that’s where you were going with the cat reference. Curious if others react to that word also. It feels the same as someone saying ‘that’s so gay’. You know, ‘whatever you do don’t be a woman because that is weak and dirty and we can all agree – bad’. Just my two cents.

        Reply
        • 32. fiona64  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm

          I do not like it when people use feline terms to equate with female anatomy, and correspondingly with weakness … I have to say that.

          Love,
          Fiona (who reamed that hate-speakin’ nephew for doing precisely that …)

          Reply
        • 33. Ronnie  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm

          Didn’t mean to offend anyone except the homophobic scardey-cat soldier who thinks that being a “real man” is being a homophobe that is afraid of being hit on by another man more then he is, like I said, of a bullet or a bomb…I apologize if I offended anyone here..was not my intentions…<3…Ronnie

          Reply
        • 34. Sagesse  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm

          A local PBS-type TV station is running a segment tonight:
          “Can you win wars without viewing the enemy as lesser beings?”

          This is what NOM does. It’s war, and the LGBT community and their supporters are the enemy. They demean and insult ‘the enemy’ and treat them like ‘lesser beings’.

          ‘You’ve got to be carefully taught
          To hate and fear….”

          Reply
    • 35. Phillip R  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:25 pm

      Yea, I wondered for a second if he was some sort of twisted closet case. I mean really..suddenly because they are out, rape is now possible?

      “I’m gonna say no now…but ask me again when you have weapons and we’ll see”

      Reply
    • 36. Steve  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:49 pm

      I think there is an underlying fear by straight men that gay men will treat them like they treat women. And they are utterly terrified about that.

      Reply
      • 37. Phillip R  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:54 pm

        I can see that.

        It’s one thing I’ve never much understood about some heterosexual men. I’m gay so I must want to sleep with them. Really? Such an egotistical viewpoint.

        Reply
      • 38. nightshayde  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm

        Bingo!

        Reply
      • 39. fiona64  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm

        Scratch a homophobe and a misogynist will bleed. It’s all about having very restricted ideas about “appropriate gender roles.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 40. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 13, 2010 at 12:58 am

        THIS.

        Reply
  • 41. TomTallis  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    This is typical of higher courts deferring completely to the military. The Pentagon has not made a case for the stay beyond the standard right-wing “because I say so.” As long as that comes from the Pentagon that’s all that’s needed for the courts to ignore the Constitution.

    Reply
  • 42. Michelle Evans  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    This decision shows once again that, for the most part, our legal system has no desire to actually follow the guidelines set for court cases. In both the Prop 8 case and the DADT case, there is zero reason that a stay of the implementation should be granted because of the egregious harm being done to LGBT people ever second these policies stay in place.

    As has been pointed out many times, the appeals process for the defendants must show that they would be harmed if the order is allowed to go forward. They cannot show that harm, but we can, and yet the courts always side with them. If that isn’t telling us something about where the ultimate decisions will fall, I don’t know what does.

    Neither set of defendants have shown one defendable premise, and yet here we sit with both Prop 8 and DADT still the law of the land for the foreseeable future.

    Reply
    • 43. Mouse  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm

      And with DADT it’s really easy to show the harm to everyone with the keeping of DADT in place, not just LGBTs are harmed, but the entire military is harmed – we have evidence of servicemen and women in critical jobs being discharged.

      What evidence do they have that there is harm to them in stopping enforcing DADT? None, because there is no harm in that. But I guess “we don’t need evidence for that” applies here.

      Good god, man.

      Reply
  • 44. Sagesse  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Subscribing to read later. Mulling Kagan’s recusal, although not a surprise, since she was AG when DOJ declined to appeal Witt.

    Reply
  • 45. Alan E.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    This old lady says it much better than I can.

    Boo I say!

    Reply
    • 46. Alan E.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      check

      Reply
  • 47. Shawn P.  |  November 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    What does Kagan’s recusal portend for her eventually participating in the decision on the case on the merits, assuming that the case gets that far?

    Reply
    • 48. bJason  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      That is what worries me. If she recuses herself (and assuming that that she would side with us) that will potentially make this much more of an uphill battle. I don’t like this at all.

      Also, I’d love to know how the votes added up.

      LEGAL EAGLES: If there is a tie, how is the decision reached?

      Reply
      • 49. Ed  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        I think if there is a tie, it reverts to whatever decision the lower court reached.

        I think….

        Reply
        • 50. Ann S.  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:35 pm

          Ed, I think you’re right. Here’s an article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2109077/

          Reply
          • 51. bJason  |  November 12, 2010 at 4:35 pm

            Thanks! I think you are correct.

            This which I just found at SCOTUSblog.com:

            “While it was not a surprise that Justice Kagan had opted not to take part in the order, that was nevertheless a significant development. It raised the prospect that, when the constitutional challenge reached the Supreme Court, the Justices might split 4-4 on it; that is always a risk when only eight Justices are taking part and the issue is a deeply controversial one. Should the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the policy, that result would simply be affirmed; without an opinion, if the Justices were actually to divide 4-4 in reaction to it.”

            http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/new-plea-to-end-military-gay-ban/

      • 52. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:48 am

        Not a legal eagle, but to summerize what I know from various sources:

        If SCOTUS ties on a ruling, the ruling of the lower court stands, but doesn’t set precident except for that circuit.

        Reply
    • 53. Chris in Lathrop  |  November 14, 2010 at 9:11 am

      Maybe I’m missing some fact about Justice Kagan, but it seems rather cowardly to me that she should recuse herself over her sexuality. Point out to me a judicial panel that has a majority of asexual judges, because if (what I perceive to be) Kagan’s logic here works, then all judges with a sexual desire should recuse themselves for their “bias” when it comes to a case that deals with sexuality.

      Reply
      • 54. Kathleen  |  November 14, 2010 at 11:37 am

        Her recusal has nothing to do with the possibility (an allegation, never confirmed) that she’s a lesbian. It is because, as Solicitor General, she was involved in some way in the earlier litigation of the cases.

        Reply
  • 55. Cat  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    As much as I dislike the decision, wouldn’t vacating the stay pretty much require deciding on the case itself?

    Reply
  • 56. nightshayde  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Here’s my thought on this matter (and please correct me if I’m wrong) …

    Wouldn’t it be worse for them to lift the stay, have currently-serving LGBT service members come out of the closet, have openly LGBT people sign up — and then have the SCOTUS decide DADT can stand after all?

    I think all the yo-yo-ness (yes … no … yes … no … maybe) would be more problematic for people than working with definites (i.e. keep the ban in place until it is either declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or until the policy is repealed by Congress).

    You and I know it’s an unconstitutional, unjust, ridiculous policy — but pulling the troops back and forth over the matter seems like a distraction they don’t need when they’re trying to keep themselves and their co-troops alive overseas.

    I still think the military could suspend all discharge proceedings & DADT-related investigations while the case progresses even if DADT stays on the books for now.

    Reply
    • 57. bb  |  November 12, 2010 at 2:50 pm

      Nightshayde,
      I have to agree with you. I think it was the best decision all around. It’s better to keep the stay, then to remove it, only to find that the Appeals Court reverses the lower courts decision. That could cause some serious harm.

      Also, with the latest DADT procedural change, it’s more difficult to be removed by DADT. Since the Secerataries of each branch now have to approve it–taking the decision away from the lower levels–I don’t think any branch head wants to waste their time listening to it. I’m guessing, but I think the complaint/file will just be filed in a dusty cabinet and nothing will be done about it.

      Reply
    • 58. bJason  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm

      I would have liked to see discharges suspended (hell, I’d have liked our CIC to have made THAT happen) but otherwise agree that, as sucky as it is, it seems almost less cruel to NOT stay it and then have it reversed.

      Reply
    • 59. Michael Ejercito  |  November 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm

      I think all the yo-yo-ness (yes … no … yes … no … maybe) would be more problematic for people than working with definites (i.e. keep the ban in place until it is either declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS or until the policy is repealed by Congress).

      I agree.

      I still think the military could suspend all discharge proceedings & DADT-related investigations while the case progresses even if DADT stays on the books for now.

      Is there a law that allows military commanders to suspend DADT discharges? If so, President Obama could simply order suspension of DADT discharges, possibly citing the ongoing war as a reason.

      Reply
      • 60. Ronnie  |  November 12, 2010 at 8:06 pm

        Maude… ; ) …Ronnie

        Reply
        • 61. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:54 am

          Reply
          • 62. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 10:17 am

            rofl…..<3…Ronnie

      • 63. Steve  |  November 13, 2010 at 8:35 am

        Sure. It’s part of the DADT law itself I think.

        Beyond, the president has the authority to suspend any law that leads to retention of needed personnel in times of war.

        But rumor has that WH lawyers are telling him that it’s not that simple. Which is nonsense. Additionally, he probably doesn’t do it in order to appease the military and the Republicans. Just as they removed the non-discrimination clause from the bill for that reason.

        Reply
        • 64. Michael Ejercito  |  November 13, 2010 at 9:31 am

          Beyond, the president has the authority to suspend any law that leads to retention of needed personnel in times of war.

          What law allows the President to suspend laws to retain needed personnel at times of war?

          (Although it would not surprise me if such a law existed, as military law is usually crafted to give the President great flexibility in military matters.)

          Reply
          • 65. Sagesse  |  November 13, 2010 at 11:18 am

            By now everyone on this site knows there is such a law, and exactly what it says and what it means. You are ignorant and uninformed, and I do wish you’d go babble somewhere else.

          • 66. Michael Ejercito  |  November 13, 2010 at 7:23 pm

            By now everyone on this site knows there is such a law, and exactly what it says and what it means. You are ignorant and uninformed, and I do wish you’d go babble somewhere else.

            10 U.S.C. § 12305 (a)

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

          • 67. fiona64  |  November 14, 2010 at 9:55 am

            Michael, what do you gain from your trolling here? Seriously, I want to know. People do things because there is some benefit to them, or to someone they care about.

            Does it make you feel like a “big man” to come in here with your insipidity and rudeness? Because I have news for you … it demonstrates that you are just the opposite.

          • 68. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 14, 2010 at 10:25 am

            The president is not authorized to permanently change US code. He can ‘temporarily’ suspend the discharges under his authority – and while he is ‘acting’ president.

            The second a new President comes into office, the temporary suspension can be lifted. Not the way we want this to go. Better to battle this and get DADT repealed.

  • 69. Bob  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    allowing ourselves to be that old football again, even just letting the notion of reversal enter our minds as a possibility, of course that’s all we on this P8TT site can do,
    like a tennis match our heads bob back and forth, from the political arena to the court room, from stay to appeal, from on circuit to the next, we watch,

    the only people who can really do anything about this DADT thing are the people who it oppresses, and they don’t have the balls to do anything, or are otherwise complacent, hiding behind it.

    entertainment for social activists like me who speculate about their fate. imagining my opinions in some way could impact them,

    Reply
  • 70. Sagesse  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Could it be that James Amos has outsmarted himself? He didn’t have to open his mouth. It feels like insubordination, and disrespect for the chain of command.

    Someone to lead the Marines out of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/dont_ask_dont_tell_and_the_mar.html

    Reply
  • 71. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  November 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    While this decision does not surprise me (this is, after all, except for Justice Kagan, the same SCOTUS that gave the corporations a blank check to use in buying elections), it is still a SUPREME SHANDA!

    Reply
    • 72. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      As nightshayde had pointed out

      Wouldn’t it be worse for them to lift the stay, have currently-serving LGBT service members come out of the closet, have openly LGBT people sign up — and then have the SCOTUS decide DADT can stand after all?

      The Ninth Circuit cited this as one of the reasons for staying the injunction.

      Reply
      • 73. Ronnie  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm

        That is not why you c&p….you don’t want LGBT people to serve openly or at all for that matter (which has been proven in past threads) because you & the rest of your homophobic ilk are selfish un-American & ungrateful porcine’s …. > I ….Ronnie

        Reply
  • […] court considers the issue, which means the ban on gay military service members continues. Read the full details here.    About the […]

    Reply
  • 75. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Now that the injunction will be stayed pending a Ninth Circuit decision on the merits, let us discuss the merits of the case.

    One of the reasons for the district court ruling is that DADT violated the First Amendment. But it has already been established that servicemen have fewer First Amendment protections than civilians ( Goldman v. Weinberger )

    For example, in Texas v. Johnson , the Supreme Court struck down a ban on flag desecration as a violation of the First Amendment. And yet, an order to not burn an American flag (or even an order to burn an American flag) would be constitutional; Johnson can be distinguished from such a case.

    To be sure, the military’s authority to regulate the conduct of servicemen has limits. But at the very least, an order or regulation prohibiting servicemen from revealing a homosexual orientation while on duty falls within these limits.

    Reply
    • 76. Ronnie  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:05 pm

      It is unconstitutional…..period….it violates the 1st & 14th amendment rights of LGBT Americans….It violates human rights…LGBT people pay into the tax pool that funds the armed forces….if our hard earned money is good enough to serve this country then so are those who are LGBT people… PERIOD….GET OVER IT!!!!!….ingrate…….. >( …Ronnie

      Reply
      • 77. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        It is unconstitutional…..period….it violates the 1st & 14th amendment rights of LGBT Americans….It violates human rights…LGBT people pay into the tax pool that funds the armed forces….if our hard earned money is good enough to serve this country then so are those who are LGBT people… PERIOD….GET OVER IT!!!!!….ingrate…….. >( …Ronnie

        And yet, in Goldman v. Weinberger , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Air Force regulation prohibiting the wearing of a yarmulke while on duty.

        Reply
        • 78. Ronnie  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm

          I repeat…It is unconstitutional…..period….it violates the 1st & 14th amendment rights of LGBT Americans….It violates human rights…LGBT people pay into the tax pool that funds the armed forces….if our hard earned money is good enough to serve this country then so are those who are LGBT people… PERIOD….GET OVER IT!!!!!….ingrate…>( …Ronnie

          Reply
          • 79. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm

            So why was it constitutional to forbid servicemen from wearing yarmulkes while on duty?

          • 80. Ronnie  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:28 pm

            You are a benighted imbecile…who obviously doesn’t understand the difference btw. uniform code & actually being a living breathing person who is risking their lives for you, you ungrateful little troll….You owe your freedom to LGBT people as well as Heterosexual..you’re a f@$king ingrate…. >( …Ronnie

        • 81. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm

          But a Jew can still ‘openly’ identify as a Jew and not be threatened. I am sure they aren’t going to allow gays to wear rainbows on their uniforms either.

          Reply
          • 82. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 12:27 pm

            I am sure they aren’t going to allow gays to wear rainbows on their uniforms either.

            Fair enough.

            While the military has great leeway in regulating off-duty conduct of servicemen, that leeway is limited.

        • 83. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  November 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm

          As a Jew, I can address this issue, especially since my husband is a Lubavitcher rabbi. When it comes to wearing a yarmulke, that is but one item that can identify a Jewish man. We do have other. There are also provisions in the talmud regarding those times when a yarmulke is not a necessity. For example, if I were still in the military and wearing my uniform hat, I would not necessarily have to wear a yarmulke. There is also the fact that I can always have a hamsa or a Magen David pendant hanging on the chain with the dog tags. And if I wore tzitzits with my uniform, the prayer cords at the corners are allowed to be tucked inside the uniform pants. So, Mr. Ejercito, once again, you are comparing apples to oranges and showing that you have no problem whatsoever with insulting ANYONE who disagrees with you, whether they are LGBT, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, or different from you in any other way. This has proven yet agaqin that you either have the mentality of a middle schooler, or that you actually ARE a middle schooler. In either event, why don’t you take you puny little self and go home. Surely your mother and father miss you when you are away from the house for too long at a time? Or perhaps they miss you when you isolate yourself in your room all day and avoid your family?

          Reply
          • 84. Michael Ejercito  |  November 14, 2010 at 7:35 pm

            So, Mr. Ejercito, once again, you are comparing apples to oranges and showing that you have no problem whatsoever with insulting ANYONE who disagrees with you, whether they are LGBT, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Wiccan, or different from you in any other way

            Whom have I insulted?

            I do not go around this blog calling the commenters “perverts” or “fags”.

          • 85. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  November 14, 2010 at 8:08 pm

            Not overtly. But the very fact that all you can do is make inane little attempts to compare apples to oranges, and to copy and paste, rather than actually trying to reason things out, and to think for yourself instead of towing the Neo-fascist, Tea Party, NOM party line WRT to civil rights is in and of itself insulting to everyone who has any intelligence whatsoever and possesses well-developed critical thinking skills as well as backgrounds that include having had civics, and a basic understanding of the United States Constitution and all of its provisions. You have none o0f the above, and yet you are trying to pretend that you are a lawyer.

          • 86. Ronnie  |  November 14, 2010 at 8:12 pm

            & you have just proven how much of a blind sighted, narcissistic, simpleton you really are….apparently in your narrow minded selfish little delusional, do as I say not as I do, LGBT people will live their lives how I demand they do, unrealistic fantasy world…insults only come in the form of direct verbs…someone never learned the definition & connotations of the word “implied” as well as read between the lines of communication….Interesting how I & several others have said you were insulting, offensive, & disrespectful but chose to ignore it in addition to continue to do it…because you are a selfish little homophobic troglodyte who cares only about himself & those who fall lock in step to your autocratic & theocratic un-American beliefs & definitions…..

            Get of your high horse, Ejercito…furthermore…Get over yourself…..<3….Ronnie

        • 87. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm

          Goldman v. Weinberg was overturned in 1988, via a provision in the National Defense Authorization bill that allowed for “neat and conservative religious apparel.”

          Nice try, Michael … perhaps next time you’ll do your homework.

          Reply
          • 88. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:36 pm

            PS to Michael: I worked for 16 years as a DoD civilian, and I supervised soldiers of all faiths. I am intimately acquainted not only with the uniform regulations, but also with the Chaplains’ Manual (which also happens to address religious apparel).

            Put that in your bigoted pipe and smoke it.

          • 89. Michael Ejercito  |  November 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm

            Goldman v. Weinberg was overturned in 1988, via a provision in the National Defense Authorization bill that allowed for “neat and conservative religious apparel.”

            Goldman was a substantive interpretation of the First Amendment.

            That interpretation still stands, even if the regulation that it upheld is no longer in force.

          • 90. Ronnie  |  November 16, 2010 at 7:28 pm

            Maude…no it doesn’t….. ; ) ….Ronnie

          • 91. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:31 am

            Michael, you’re wrong. My source on this information is PRIMARY.

            Get lost, little boy.

          • 92. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 10:38 am

            Michael, you’re wrong. My source on this information is PRIMARY.

            Get lost, little boy.

            And if you had a rudimentary knowledge of constititional law, you would know that Congress can not overturn a Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional provision by passing legislation.

          • 93. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:05 am

            That is soooooooo amusing coming from someone (Michael Ejercito) who knows nothing about Constitutional law which has been proven time & time again….. ; ) …Ronnie

          • 94. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:40 pm

            Michael, just where did you graduate from law school again?

            Oh, wait. You didn’t.

            Goldman v. Weinberg was invalidated. Period. The end.

            Accomodation of Religious Practices within the US Military

            Look specifically at paragraph 5, as cited from DODD Reg 1300.17.

            You’re welcome.

            Asshole.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...