Simple question: do folk here really want SCOTUS to decide DADT?

I'm not a professional historian, and I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that through much of US history SCOTUS has not been a particularly progressive force

There was, of course, a period when SCOTUS really was a progressive force: in my youth, the Warren Court was a real beacon for decency, democracy, and equality -- it limited the powers of the police state, greatly extended free speech rights, and really stood for equal justice under law

That SCOTUS is long gone. The conservatives hated it then, and they continue to hate its legacy and memory. For decades, conservative justices have been rolling back its accomplishments

In recent years, SCOTUS has had a heavy concentration of conservative extremists. Bush v Gore would have been unimaginable from earlier courts. Among cases within living memory, Citizens United was without parallel in its sweeping extension of the issues before the Court and its complete disregard for precedent

I see no reason to trust that our current SCOTUS will correctly resolve the contradictory rulings from different circuits regarding DADT. And I should think the best way to prevent a train-wreck at the top would be to moot all the cases by repealing the law

This Court has been making a steady march rightward since 1994, getting more conservative every single appointment.

there is no law anymore for any other circuit to appeal. You can't bring a case in another jurisdiction regarding a defunct statute.

And the DOJ is the only one with standing to appeal the Riverside case.

The law has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

No appeal, no law.

And he's also free then to write an anti discriminatory EO (which he has to do anyway, since he and the military stripped it from the compromise bill.)

Just end it.

And you seem to think the only route for reintroducing the matter to the courts would be direct appeal of this single decision

But I think I can imagine other routes by which various friends of DADT might have standing to reintroduce the issues here into the courts, if the Administration treated that one stay as the end of the matter. Now, of course, I am not a lawyer, and so I cannot speak authoritatively on the matter -- and if I could speak authoritatively, I still would not point out such routes, since it is not my intention to carry water for my political enemies

Washington, however, is full of talented lawyers. And the Administration is full of talented lawyers. And if I, who am not a lawyer, can imagine routes by which various friends of DADT might have standing to sue for enforcement of a statute, perhaps it is even more likely that among the legions of lawyers in DC, there are some who can similarly imagine such routes. And if that is actually the case, and the friends of DADT avail themselves of such routes, then allowing the stay to stand would guarantee that the issue runs straight to SCOTUS, like it or not

I don't understand why that is so complicated to grasp. If you don't want the supreme court to decide this, then you need to move John McCain.

If the DOJ doesn't appeal, DADT is dead and buried. It'll only get to the SCOTUS if the DOJ appeal to the 9th Circuit, and whoever loses that decision appeals.

DADT could be dead. All the DOJ has to do is not appeal.

Somebody in some other part of the country brings a slightly different version of the case and the circuit judge their overturns. It's just ridiculous for anybody to say this is the end of DADT.

Your hypothetical situation really isn't possible. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional by a court, that decision holds for the entire country. The only way for the decision to be overturned is on appeal. If the DOJ doesn't appeal, DADT is dead. There wouldn't be any subsequent cases on DADT because DADT wouldn't exist anymore.

The only conceivable way for your hypothetical situation to work would be if someone within the military prevailed in a higher court against the branch in which they served on the grounds that the inclusion of openly gay persons violated their Constitutional rights and the resulting decision ordered the DoD to start enforcing DADT again. Such a case is highly unlikely, a victory after appeal (needed to get to a higher court) is even less likely, and that a decision would order enforcement of a law previously declared unconstitutional is practically impossible.

Still not clear? Look up "case law." (Here's a link to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law)

I know it's a fanciful scenario people are trying to push. It's just not true. If it were, there would be no need for the Supreme Court.

It's unbelievable what lies people will tell in order to justify their politics.

Here's an example of why there's a Supreme Court that relates to the matter at hand:

-Congress passes a law.
-An individual (or individuals) challenges the law in court, alleging that it violates their rights.
-A district court takes the case and the judge renders a decision.
-Whichever side lost can then appeal. They do, and the case gets taken up by the circuit court.
-The circuit court rules to either uphold the lower court's decision or overturn it.
-The side that lost this ruling can then appeal. They do, and the Supreme Court takes up the case.
-The Supreme Court has the final say in the matter (barring a Constitutional amendment).

There are also numerous other types of cases that start with the Supreme Court. They're right there in Article III of the Constitution.

-A district court cannot overturn another district court ruling.
-A circuit court can only overturn a district court ruling on appeal of the specific case.
-The Supreme court can only overturn a circuit court ruling on appeal of the specific case.

And as I said, if a case is brought in a different circuit, and a judge decides in opposition to the 9th circuit, then you've got a conflict that has to work its way to the Supreme Court. Lawrence v Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick. The Eleventh & Fifth Circuit currently have conflicting law regarding sex toys. Happens all the time. Why are you denying it?

DADT is a Federal law, not a state law.

going to substandard schools with no government or civics classes.

I really pity you for that.

But I'm glad you're here in the GLBT forum! Please post more!

Is that I know circuit courts DO NOT decide anything significantly controversial in this country and yet Harvard lawyers are pretending they do.

I also wish that you had taken a high school Geometry class. That's where we teach you basic logic skills. At least if it's a decent class.

Thanks again for coming by! I'm always enlightened by your posts!

from still repealing it...

and gone to work on Congress. That would have meant a stay of discharges for the moment while something more permanent could be put together.

As it is, now the issue is open again AND nothing doing in Congress. Worst of all possible worlds.

It would have been moot by the time the Senate got around to even considering it.

The ruling was a gift--use it to stop the discharges while you work on getting repeal through Congress.

Best of both worlds, right? Pennies from heaven? Right?

But then I am not a constitutional scholar, I guess.

lol

Admit it!

For the umpteenth time or so. Authority to decide matters regarding the defense of federal law does not rest with the POTUS. The very very LIMITED authority rests with the Attorney General, who is bound by certain strictures that control how and when he's required to act.

The crickets are getting tired.

I'm really fed up with how the only thing Obama is responsible for is speechmaking and his pet projects. He's the commander in chief for fuck sake.

If you want to side with cons, just do it and be open about it. Stop standing on the fence and get a platform.