NationStates

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:56 am**

Lackadaisical2 wrote:Thank God the GOP legally challenged DADT, since the dems apparently couldn't do it. (/silly partisanship)

Log Cabin Republicans is not "the GOP."

Mainstream LGBT rights organizations, for good reason, are hesitant about challenges to laws in the federal courts. The main one they've done since Lawrence v. Texas is the DOMA challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. It doesn't help that Congress is literally on the verge of repealing DADT (assuming Harry Reid decides to actually bring it to a vote sooner or later.)

But this will go to the next court up, I'd think. Strange that the Justice department defended it, even though Obama seems to want to get rid of it.

The Justice Department generally defends federal law.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:57 am**

Tekania wrote:
Greater Americania wrote:
Geniasis wrote:
Greater Americania wrote:"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is constitutional.

You're not legally empowered to make that decision.

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

You're right, "gay rights" are laughable... Actually, what we're talking about under the somewhat deceptive moniker of "gay rights" is basic US rights to its citizens, which in this case are being denied to gays, not "special" rights. Much as like when they were talking about civil-rights-era African American Rights, it was not "special" rights for African Americans, but rather basic US citizen rights being denied to African Americans.

Very sensible but unfortunately, GA and his ilk think that gay citizens already have all the rights they need: they have the right to stop being gay, the right to be "normal" like the majority of their fellow citizens, and they have the right to STFU and stop whining.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:57 am**

Tekania wrote:
Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:
Tekania wrote:
Greater Americania wrote:I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired. The very concept of judicial review should be reevaluated Constitutionally and edited so that Courts will not have the authority to make decisions like this. The Courts are becoming as though a legislature of their own. All they have to do is scream "unconstitutional" and they can enforce whatever they please.

Yes, who needs pesky judicial review. It would be so much better if the majority got to simply vote what-ever they want in.

Not every American institution needs to be a social experiment. The US military's faults don't arise from excluding homosexuals from service.

The US military, as any other branch or department within the Federal government is bound by, and to protect the US Constitution. What the military's faults may or may not be have no bearing what-so-ever on determinations upon whether its policies are in-line with the document it is sworn to protect.

Not buyin' it... Hopefully this will be appealed and settled at the USSC.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:01 am**

I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:05 am**

Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

I am not certain how that works honestly.
A district court normally only affects its district.
However no clue how it works when its a district court issuing an injunction to the branch of a federal government.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:05 am**

Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

What a nonsensically ignorant thing to say. Of course they can.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:06 am**

Bydlostan wrote:
Potarius wrote:I think Mr. Cooper meant "archaic", not "arcane".

Then again, maybe the statute is fortified with magics both powerful and terrible?

That policy came from Clinton, its not that old or obsolescent, he must have meant arcane.

I don't see anything wrong with DADT, people should keep their sex lives to themselves.

Your right, A persons sex life should not have anything to do with their right to serve our country. If A heterosexual man can serve next to a woman and not have a problem why cant a homosexual man serve next to another man, and be open about it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:07 am**

Neo Art wrote:
Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

What a nonsensically ignorant thing to say. Of course they can.

I am only in the 3rd week of civ pro.
Explain explain explain.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:08 am**

greed and death wrote:
Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

I am not certain how that works honestly.
A district court normally only affects its district.
However no clue how it works when its a district court issuing an injunction to the branch of a federal government.

the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.

A district court's ruling can not impact beyond the scope of the parties involved, and as such its ruling can not impact parties generally not part of the suit (which is why even though a district court rules that California's prop 8 was unconstitutional, that ruling does not impact other states, because other states were not a party to the suit, and a federal district court in one district wouldn't generally have the jurisdiction to hear a case brought against a state in another district) their authority at the federal level is federally wide.

A district court judge blocked obama's plan to use federal funds for stem cell research a few weeks ago. That ruling has ramifications beyond the state in which the district court was situated (well, "state", if I recall that ruling came from the D.C. district court).

It enjoined the federal government.

All of it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:10 am**

Neo Art wrote:
greed and death wrote:
Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

I am not certain how that works honestly.
A district court normally only affects its district.
However no clue how it works when its a district court issuing an injunction to the branch of a federal government.

the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.

A district court's ruling can not impact beyond the scope of the parties involved, and as such its ruling can not impact parties generally not part of the suit (which is why even though a district court rules that California's prop 8 was unconstitutional, that ruling does not impact other states, because other states were not a party to the suit, and a federal district court in one district wouldn't generally have the jurisdiction to hear a case brought against a state in another district) their authority at the federal level is federally wide.

A district court judge blocked obama's plan to use federal funds for stem cell research a few weeks ago. That ruling has ramifications beyond the state in which the district court was situated (well, "state", if I recall that ruling came from the D.C. district court).

It enjoined the federal government.

All of it.

You should teach my Civ pro class, the guy I have is really dry.
that makes sense.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:11 am**

greed and death wrote:
Neo Art wrote:
Bluth Corporation wrote:I agree with the court's decision, but a district court cannot make decisions that are binding across the country.

What a nonsensically ignorant thing to say. Of course they can.

I am only in the 3rd week of civ pro.
Explain explain explain.

The ruling is against the party. It impacts the party and enjoins the party.

the party is the US federal government. It is factually incorrect to assume that a district court's authority only extends to enforcing its ruling in its district. Districts are not local municipalities. It's a federal court. It has jurisdiction over the federal government.

When it comes to STATE matters, a district court's jurisdiction generally extends only to the state in which it is in, but that's because the federal district court is, for lack of a more complex explanation, acting as a proxy for the state court (IE for example the prop 8 case brought in district court COULD have been brought in california state court, there are tactical reasons for forum shopping however).

But this is a FEDERAL matter and as such the FEDERAL district court extends throughout the federal government.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:15 am**

Neo Art wrote:the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.

What injunction?

No judge has actually ordered the federal government to cease operating under this policy. A single court has merely held (rightly so) that it finds this policy invalid and therefore will not uphold it. That does not prevent another court, at the same level, from disagreeing and upholding the policy.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:22 am**

The Parkus Empire wrote:
Xsyne wrote:Given that the remark was made in context of ways to avoid being drafted, I'm pretty sure it was in reference to women not having to sign up for the draft. Just call it a hunch.

Well he was speaking in present tense, and the draft was abolished by Nixon, so. . . .

The draft wasn't abolished, the federal government simply knows that it isn't popular. Men still have to sign up for the selective service (as in register for a number that may be called should the draft ever be called up again), whereas women do not.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:24 am**

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:
Tekania wrote:
Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:Not every American institution needs to be a social experiment. The US military's faults don't arise from excluding homosexuals from service.

The US military, as any other branch or department within the Federal government is bound by, and to protect the US Constitution. What the military's faults may or may not be have no bearing what-so-ever on determinations upon whether its policies are in-line with the document it is sworn to protect.

Not buyin' it... Hopefully this will be appealed and settled at the USSC.

Buying what? That the military is obligated to recognize the fundamental rights of US citizens? No need to buy that, it's a requirement. Any military person who thinks otherwise should be charged and tried for dereliction of duty and given at minimal a 'big chicken dinner'...

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:27 am**

Progress

. Good for America. And better, we get to see conservatives flailing desperately, grasping at every straw to find some way the court can be wrong and they can keep oppressing gays.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:31 am**

The military should ideally be outside the courts and lawmakers jurisdiction. The military have their own laws and their own courts. Treating the armed forces as any other employeer like McDonalds is a disgrace.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:32 am**

Imperial Domtopia wrote:Anybody stupid enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in.
-Bill Hicks

You, sir, win this debate.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:33 am**

Militsia wrote:The military should ideally be outside the courts and lawmakers jurisdiction. The military have their own laws and their own courts. Treating the armed forces as any other employeer like McDonalds is a disgrace.

...... What is this I don't even?

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:35 am**

Militsia wrote:The military should ideally be outside the courts and lawmakers jurisdiction. The military have their own laws and their own courts. Treating the armed forces as any other employeer like McDonalds is a disgrace.

Military personnel have their own laws, but they are still subject to the lawmakers... That concept is fundamental to our way of government. The military properly should be subservient to the people.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:36 am**

Oh, Joy. Next thing you know, the army will be wearing pink.
:palm:

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:37 am**

Militsia wrote:The military should ideally be outside the courts and lawmakers jurisdiction. The military have their own laws and their own courts. Treating the armed forces as any other employeer like McDonalds is a disgrace.

It's absolutely insane to suggest that the US military should exist outside the scope of the US constitution. Absolutely insane and totally impossible.

Krala Sau wrote:Oh, Joy. Next thing you know, the army will be wearing pink.

They already do, I'm sure.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:45 am**

Krala Sau wrote:Oh, Joy. Next thing you know, the army will be wearing pink.

Maybe some of them should be forced to. Among other things.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... ns-fingers

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:47 am**

Krala Sau wrote:Oh, Joy. Next thing you know, the army will be wearing pink.

Do you really want to start mocking the military for using pink?

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:56 am**

Krala Sau wrote:Oh, Joy. Next thing you know, the army will be wearing pink.

Posted: **Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:58 am**

It's already happened!

NationStates

Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional