Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Source: MSNBC

BREAKING NEWS
updated 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

---

That's all they have for the moment.

It's so idiotic.

It's not contagious.

You can't catch it from a doorknob or a toilet seat.

I guess that is the rationale Obama used when he asked the court to reach this decision.

Yes, I'm grasping at straws.

other people are "telling." People are being outed.

If we are going to engage in mutual denial then everybody has to be on board with it. It's not just the responsiblity of the person whose sexuality is in question. It's also the responsibility of others )who might happen to see him crusing in a gay bar or in whatever else might happen to spill the beans) to not tell. And if they tell, they are the ones who violated DADT, not the person they are blabbing about.

Everybody's bisexual. Granted there's a spectrum evidenced in an inverse bell curve. There's also more than one polarity.

What do you call someone who has "gay" fantasies but never acts on them? (I'm very suspicious of guys who watch at lot of professional wrestling).

would have ruled? And if these soldiers had lost at the Supreme Court level, what next? Lastly, hasn't the president stated that he prefers that DADT and DOMA be reversed by the legislature?

on the subject.
:shrug:

he's just biding his time, or prioritizing as it were. He knows that this issue is important to a lot of the people who supported him, and I just don't believe that he'll leave us hanging. Call me optimistic. DADT was bad legislation, and I don't know what he's hearing from the military brass, but I believe with his persuasive powers, he'll be able to take this on, once healthcare is a done deal.

...by TELLING the SCOTUS to reject this court case. Such a "fierce advocate" we've got there in the White House.

refrain from snarky sarcasm like "fierce advocate". I don't know the ins & outs of the legal system, so I'll wait for more knowledgeable people to weigh in on the pros & cons of this decision. I heard an advocate on Randi Rhodes who said that they were concerned about Prop 8 going before the USSC, because if they lose there, it sets an irreversible precedent.

...

We know that it will be a 5-4 decision. My question is, what avenues are open if they had lost in the SC?

SCOTUS justices are famously reluctant to flat out overturn existing precedent unless it creates an obvious constitutional conflict.

where do you go from there? Do you keep appealing to the same body?

NT

repeals this stupid law, which makes the courts intervention unnecessary, so everyone's happy? Well, I guess "happy" is subjective.

This is an unusual case because it involved military law, which as I've noted they give a wide leeway to. So as such, it's dubious that they'd overturn DADT on constitutional grounds if they even took the case. If they were applying the same constitutionality test to military law, this would never have come up, since the SCOTUS already ruled in 2003 that sodomy laws (broadly defined there as laws regulating consentual adult sexual conduct) were unconstitutional. But they didn't apply that to military law.

However, the Congress legislates for the military the same as they do for civilian law. Thus, Congress can simply make a new law which says that sodomy (defined in the UCMJ as penetrative oral or anal sex, by/on any gender) is no longer against military law, and that gay people can serve openly. That would solve DADT, and bring military law up to the modern era to boot.

In other SCOTUS cases, what you would have to do if you got turned down would be to basically find a new argument, some different angle on why such and such should be considered unconstitutional. For instance, take gay marriage. One argument would be that failure to provide equal rights runs afoul of the 14th amendment, Equal Protection clause. Suppose that they declined to hear that case. You could still come back with, say, a suit by a liberal, gay-marrying church arguing that a government ban on gay marriage interferes with their first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

That has a snowball's chance for many years.

We've just been handed our tickets to the back of the bus. Gee, all this change is killin' me!

but I ain't optimistic.
:shrug:

white house web site, listed and discussed as future goals. DADT and promises to the LGBT community were there for a while, but then got deleted. His promises to us are gone. They are apparently no longer on his long term agenda.

He is breaking his promises to the LGBT community, and refusing to even speak about it. WH press secretary Gibbs has been in full evasion mode every time anything LGBT related comes up.

Some of the people in his administration who would have to be involved in working on any changed have been quoted saying that there is nothing happening and nothing planned as far as they know.

So unfortunately, Obama hasn't just been "somewhat quiet." He has outright sacrificed our community in order to try to work better with republicans. :(

be careful not to become the thing we said we hated. Bush took a beating here for governing by signing statements and executive orders. And just because they're "our issues", I don't think we want to follow that closely in the footsteps of the last administration. I keep asking, what is the LGBT community doing to put pressure on their members of Congress? I never get an answer. If the heat is put on the people who have to get elected every two years, then they can put the necessary heat on the administration...no?

You have to admit that this president walked into a virtual shitstorm. A tanking economy, wars on two fronts, and the demise of the Big Three. I, too, want him to address this issue head on. But I also realize that he's only 5 months into his first term, and I'm convinced that this president will try to keep as many of his campaign promises as he possibly can.

And thanks for your civil response. ThomCat, I think we're both on the same page, but the tone around here sometimes makes me defensive, and for that I apologize to you personally.:hug:

he was signing. Executive orders are something else entirely. If you're confusing the two then maybe you don't understand what executive orders are.

He's the head of the executive branch. As the executive, he has the power to give orders to all agencies and departments in the executive branch on any issue of policy that hasn't yet been covered explicitly by law.

This isn't something where the President can say "let's ignore this law."

and since laws come from the legislature, he'd like it to be overturned there. The people who insist that the president undo these bad laws with the stroke of a pen, don't realize that in doing so, he would be leaving out a very important branch of the government.

I think that since the president came from the legislative body, and witnessed the last administration governing by signing statements, and executive orders, doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Or could we reasonably expect to hear from HIM on this issue and the reasons he hasn't done squat nor revealed his plans to do squat?

administration, but I was relating what I heard him say with my own ears. And as for the snarky ass response, perhaps you better place me on "Ignore" before this gets ugly. Later......

And your check is ready and waiting at the WH Press Office.

That's a frightening thought.

NOT.

:rofl:

Sorry I can't say it's been interesting.

... if you'll show me yours. Whaddya say?

An executive order would end DADT immediately.

The army was desegregated with an executive order. That did not require legislation. This idea that DADT requires legislation to be ended is a sad shallow excuse, and it's been debunked repeatedly.

People are so busy making excuses for Obama that they're ignoring his ability as Commander In Chief to sign and executive order requiring the military under his command to cease enforcement of DADT.

The white house press corps have repeatedly asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs why Obama doesn't sign an executive order, and they keep getting non-answers. THEY certainly know that an executive order would do the trick.

from congress. Segregation in the Armed forces was based on individual regulations issued by each service. Congress was not involved. That being the case President Truman could issue an executive order to change the military regulations regarding segregation. DADT is enshrined in Federal law 103-160 (10 USC & 654). President Obama does not have the Consitutional authority to ignore a law enacted by Congress and signed by a previous President.

They are certain that an executive order is sufficient.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x136331

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

he cannot change the law as it is written.

experts? :shrug:

You can't sign an executive order saying DADT doesn't exist, anymore than Bush could sign one saying torture was legal. Period.

Checks and balances. The Executive can choose to not enforce laws. Remember all the people that insist that we don't need more gun control, we just need to enforce the laws on the books? There would be no problem with having a law on the books and a statement that the military (aka part of the Executive Branch) will not enforce that law pending legislative review. At least that will give the lameass conservatives that control Congress (like Pelosi and Reid) a reason to get the DADT repeal out of the damned committee.

If there's no pressure on Congress created by a situation needing attention, they have every reason to simply drop the matter and run away.

As for not enforcing laws, you have to ask yourself if that isn't a slippery slope into the sort of thing that Bush did, casually deciding what parts of established law should be followed and which shouldn't. We have those checks and balances for a reason.

NT!

Please do a little research before you act like you know what you're talking about.

jursidiction in all DADT discharges. Not many company commanders out there want to deal with that kind of paperwork. This would effectively halt all such discharges and give him time to work on Congress to change the law.

It would, at best, temporarily hold things up, remove any pressure on Congress to actually repeal the law, and it would set the stage for the next Republican to come in and rescind the EO, putting us back at square one.

Would NC have gone for Obama with 7% disappearing? I've got plans for 2 Nov 10 already. Looks like I'll be making other plans for the first Tuesday of November in 2012. How many states will not go for pseudo-progressive Democrats if we stay home? Keep in mind that right now we're the single most reliable demographic for the Democrats.

Source: AP

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'
June 8, 2009 - 10:26am

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

Read more: http://wtop.com/?nid=343&sid=1691692

The only time they care about us is when they're running for office. That includes Obama.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have fun in the faith-based community.

If they'd applied Lawrence vs. Texas to military law as well, this would have been over 6 years ago, since homosexuality would no longer have been a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The take home lesson of THIS article has nothing to do with the SCOTUS but rather OBAMA and his TELLING the SCOTUS to reject the case in question. Nice try in deflecting the blame away from Obama and onto the SCOTUS, though...

consider?

That said, I hope that they get to DADT this year, because I'm getting really sick of this.

If "Military Law" can't be ruled unconstitutional we're in deep shit.

Technically, military law CAN be ruled unconstitutional. However, since the military has a more or less seperate judicial system from the civilian courts, it takes a really overwhelming case to jump the fence so to speak. In my opinion, that bar needs to be a hell of a lot lower.

To clarify for anyone who doesn't know the backstory: Lawrence vs. Texas was the 2003 SCOTUS decision that struck down sodomy laws in the US on the grounds that, basically, the government had no compelling interest in regulating who was fucking who and how.

Problem: military law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, still has specific provisions making "sodomy" a crime. (By their count, "sodomy" is defined as penetrative oral or anal sex, by/on any gender or participant.) So basically, anyone who's ever had fun while in the military is eligible for dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Now this is pretty clearly 1) unconstitutional 2) asininely draconian 3) antiquated. However, the military is granted wide leniancy by the civilian courts to enforce laws that would be unconstitutional for the rest of the country under the guise of "maintaining discipline."

that when people enter the military, they have significantly LEsS rights than they do as "free citizens" so to speak.

it is well established that military personnel can be prosecuted for speech that would be perfectly legal for average citizens (certain comments about the commander in chief, for example)

military personnel have significantly less privacy, and privacy and sexuality are closely related in the law, than non-military.

military law criminalizes all sorts of sexual conduct (hetero and same sex both) that would be constitutionally protected on the outside.

none of these facts are even argued. they are long established.

in the instant case, i agree with the scotus. i am 100% against DADT and i think obama has been weak on GLBT rights in general. but just because i think DADT is terribly bad policy, does not mean its unconstitutional.

should obama scrap DADT? absolutely.

should the scotus? not unless its unconstitutional, and i have yet to hear a compelling argument for that

ETA: People who have bled for this country, cause right or wrong, are having their lives destroyed.

I don't think gay rights is something we should compromise on.

Source: Associated Press

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAYS_MILITARY?SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

How is that? Rationally? What rational? Please site all the concrete, empirical incidences where a homosexual soldier endangered discipline and cohesion that was the HOMOSEXUAL's fault and not that of some HOMOPHOBE's.... if you can find an example.

We need people who can deal with reality on our armed services, not hysterical bigots unsure of their own sexuality. Maybe we should ban homophobes from service until they can prove they have grown up.

Now THAT'S a policy that would actually make sense!

Unfortunately, our armed services seem to think that skinheads and felons pose less of a danger to morale than homosexuals-- a TRULY f-ed up perspective.




Alas, far from banning homophobes,we are actively recruiting them.


:puke:

is the lowest level of scrutiny that SCOTUS reviews governmental action. There are three levels, "strict scrutiny", "intermediate scrutiny" and "rational basis" review. In most cases, the level of scrutiny applied determines the outcome. If strict scrutiny is applied, the goverment action is usually deemed unconstitutional. Conversely, if rational basis review is applied, a court almost always finds a "rational relationship" between the stated government action and the means to achieve it.

The better question is why sexual orientation is/was reviewed under rational basis instead of atrict scrutiny. I'll see if I can find the answer . . .

:wtf:

I just don't understand why so many straight people, especially straight people in positions of authority, are so unwilling to even consider moving beyond homophobia. They embrace this bigotry with both hands and hold on tight. :(

Since most Americans want it repealed.

our equal rights as a good thing. But somehow you get to people up in authority and that good will often seems to disappear. Rationalizations creep in.

The need to justify and rationalize arbitrary authority for its own sake seems to come first, so we hear more stuff like this, defending arbitrary authority even though there is nothing rational about it.

:(

When dealing with people with irrational ideas you're likely get burned when it comes down to one or more of their decisions.

It has also been posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=136260&mesg_id=136260

I think Obama is walking carefully here and doesn't want to hurr this one too much. Had Bill Clinton not rushed it in his first term he would not have had to settle for DADT. I believe if Obama gets a second term you will not only see him sign off on gays serving openly in the military, but he will go to the left in his second term He would have nothing to lose.

:eyes:

:eyes:

his entire first term, as he has been doing repeatedly, and he gets a second term, he's going to do an about-face and start moving to the left?


Somehow, I doubt that's very likely.

First move: gays to Q4 for sacrifice.

Those of us who are looking at his moves right now are making a huge mistake. We're not seeing what his moves will be at the end of his 4 year term. Unlike his fans.

They're wise enough to see the future though. They see what he's doing a dozen moves ahead, as opposed to what we can only see now.

:P

You are a piece of work.

:eyes:

Maybe he should be made a moderator for the LGBT forum next time around.

Its largely a 'procedural' decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?hpid=topnews

Is it remotely possible that the WH coordinated with the aforementioned group? Perhaps public opinion will be one of the deciding factors here, as it regards the Pentagon's review.

...clearly Pietrangelo was not. He is furious and is fuming in anger and disgust all over talk radio this morning, aiming his criticism squarely at Obama, whom Pietrangelo called a liar, a bigot and a coward.

clearly states why Pietrangelo went it alone, and the others didn't follow. Me thinks Mr. Pietrangelo is looking for some much desired publicity? I don't have a problem that he has a problem with the administration. But it's worth taking into consideration why the others didn't follow him in this lawsuit.

That must be it.

Me thinks.

'the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.'

and, 'Pietrangelo appealed to the Supreme Court on his own, while most of the other plaintiffs asked the court to not to review the case, preferring to allow the administration to deal with the issue.'

I guess it would be easy to speculate, but if the others didn't want the high court to hear the case, what makes Pietrangelo's stand out? Face time on the teevee?

Fiercealicious!

a Supreme Court Justice AND President now? I must have missed that announcement.

position.

Actually I guess he is if you consider most politicians are liars.

Did you miss that announcement?

the tire marks are free.

LOL

If all are not free to discuss their sexuality, none should be.