[kidwoo]

Don't ask don't tell gets ruled unconstitutional. The administration moves to appeal the decision. Presumably by the attorney general of the US. That's eric holder, an appointee of the admistration....an appointee who one would assume pursues the interests of the administration. Teh adminstration™ held as a plank of their platform, the repeal of this very thing.

wassah happenin?

 

[X3pilot]

Presumably by the attorney general of the US. That's eric holder, an appointee of the admistration....an appointee who one would assume pursues the interests of the administration.

The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The Attorney General is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government.

Although he is an appointee, he has to be confirmed by Congress. He serves at the pleasure of the President, but can also be tried for impeachment by the HoR.
Member of the Cabinet, but does not hold the title of Secretary. Those folks usually pursue the interest of the administration.

As far as the appeal goes, hard to say other than the AG won't really step in until the Supreme Court hears it. Hard to rule on the Constitutionality of a policy, not a law.

Would be far easier if Obama would uphold his promise and order the policy cancelled, as is his right as the CinC. But, it is an election year and they look like they are afraid of the Tea Party.

 

[jimmydean]

I don't want no openly ghey folk in the militay. It's unfair for all who served before them while locked in a closet.

 

[kidwoo]

Although he is an appointee, he has to be confirmed by Congress. He serves at the pleasure of the President, but can also be tried for impeachment by the HoR.
Member of the Cabinet, but does not hold the title of Secretary. Those folks usually pursue the interest of the administration..

I know all this, that's why I asked. I typically think of cabinet members working in the general vicinity of the president.

As far as the appeal goes, hard to say other than the AG won't really step in until the Supreme Court hears it. Hard to rule on the Constitutionality of a policy, not a law.

Would be far easier if Obama would uphold his promise and order the policy cancelled, as is his right as the CinC. But, it is an election year and they look like they are afraid of the Tea Party.

That's where I was confused. I was assuming obama would have upheld this ruling.

I actually found my answer though.

"The President believes and has repeatedly affirmed that 'don't ask, don't tell' is a bad policy that harms our national security and undermines our military effectiveness. . . . The President and his Administration are working with the military leadership and Congress to repeal this law."

"This is not a situation in which, with the stroke of a pen, I can end the policy," he said. "I think people are born with a certain makeup and that we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407018.html?hpid=topnews


Fvck him. Seriously.

 

[rockofullr]

Woo,

Stop being one of those liberals who hates on Obama cause he hasn't changed everything overnight. Being frustrated is OK but as far as I can tell the guy is trying his hardest to get it done.

Here's an article that might be an interesting read for you:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

 

[kidwoo]

That has a lot of words and stuff, I'll read it later.


The guy is appealing a decision he openly supported based on semantics now. That's lame. REALLY lame.

It would be difficult for me to stop being anything I'm not, just because it fits in a canned stereotype. I'm not exactly on my way to teabag right now or anything.

 

[Silver]

Fvck him. Seriously.

Fags are the new public option.

And no, we're not all "Children of God"...none of us are, actually. Which makes excusing the President's cowardice on this issue even more pathetic.

 

[sanjuro]

I heard Obama's answer on a MTV townhall about why he is leaving it to Congress compared to Truman's direct order (Executive Order 9981) to end segregation.

He mentioned there were different circumstances, I believe that Congress said they were going to continue segregation, which is why Truman made his order and Obama is leaving it to the legislative branch.

I still can't tell if this is a cop-out or the response of an enlightened man. I will have to research Executive Order 9981 for my answer.

 

[Silver]

It's a cop out, or Obama is as bigoted as his professed religious beliefs demand.

Either way, it's disgusting.

 

[kidwoo]

Obama is leaving it to the legislative branch.

Yeah those morons are the shining banner of getting useful things accomplished.

 

[ohio]

This is procedural. First, this needs to go to the Supreme Court to stick. Obama has made his position pretty clear, but changing something like this by executive mandate would be disaster. The supreme court is the best tool for unpopular social change, since congress will never have the balls to make unpopular decisions. Second, the Justice Department is required to prosecute the appeal. The justice department is part of Obama's administration which opposes DADT, but they need to be on that side of the argument as a point of process, whether they like it or not.

This is like a public defender working for a serial rapist. It's not that they support the rapist, it's that they are required constitutionally and professional to represent that side of the room.

edit: just read Sanjuro's post. I take back some of what I said. Obama doesn't have Truman's balls. I still think it is the right path in today's political climate. Obama should have done this when he had real political capital early in his admin.

 

[X3pilot]

Yeah those morons are the shining banner of getting useful things accomplished.

yeah...

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness.[ On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act. The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010.

On September 21, 2010, a filibuster led by John McCain prevented debate on the Defense Authorization Act, which included the Murphy amendment, in the United States Senate.

 

[stevew]

waiting for a school house rock song about this....

 

[kidwoo]

Woo,

Stop being one of those liberals who hates on Obama cause he hasn't changed everything overnight. Being frustrated is OK but as far as I can tell the guy is trying his hardest to get it done.

Here's an article that might be an interesting read for you:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

Aight, I read the article.


Doesn't change at all how I feel about this particular issue.......but I did read it.