Federal Judge rules to bar DADT Enforcement

Judge Bars DADT Enforcement
By Andrew Harmon

In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips ordered the Defense Department to "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding" related to "don't ask, don't tell."

In her order Phillips did not specify when the injunction would become effective. Justice Department attorneys have objected in court to the immediate halt of DADT enforcement and may appeal the injunction to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

In September government attorneys argued that an injunction against "don't ask, don't tell" would preclude the government from litigating other legal challenges to DADT as well as prevent it from considering the terms of a stay banning discharges of gay soldiers.

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/12/Fed_Judge_Rules_to_Bar_DADT_Enforcement/

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of
Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or
discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced
under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its
implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.

Fantastic.

I'm sure he will.

And the ones who say HE HAS to (when this has been debunked OVER AND OVER) are coming in 3...2...1

And once again, being appealed is a good thing. It takes this to a higher court which establishes better precedent.

the more foolish you look.

Whereas I've repeatedly cited the provision of federal law which requires the DOJ to defend federal law. Which is exactly what the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel will tell you: "The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support, even if the Attorney General concludes that the argument may ultimately be unsuccessful in the courts." From "The Attorney General’s Duty to Defend the Constitutionality of Statutes," 1981.

The principle itself is called "Duty to Defend." The only exception is when PRIOR PRECEDENT establishes the statute as invalid: for instance, once back in the 1990s when the DOJ determined that 18 U.S.C. § 3501--which allowed a confession as admissible evidence regardless of whether the suspect had been informed of their rights--had been overruled by the SCOTUS Miranda ruling.

To repeat: the DOJ can only decline to defend if PRIOR PRECEDENT rules the law unconstitutional. These cases are where the precedent is being created.

the 9th district of appeals is now in the drivers seat if the Admin decides to appeal - they could put the order on hold. But thats only if they choose to appeal.

I know it's much simpler to be pissed off and want to scapegoat somebody because the system doesn't work as fast as anyone would like.

and you won't respond to this, because you NEVER admit you're wrong.

Admitting they're wrong is the least of their problems.

:applause:

:crazy:

:D

This is the perfect cover to do the right thing. You shouldn't have to rely on a judicial ruling to do the right thing, but then I'm just a gay guy who wants to quickly remove an odious excuse for bigotry.

The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the government is under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

The Department of Justice IS legally obligated to defend federal law:

"The Department of Justice has a duty to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support, even if the Attorney General concludes that the argument may ultimately be unsuccessful in the courts." From "The Attorney General’s Duty to Defend the Constitutionality of Statutes," 1981.

They may not argue a specific case because it gets consolidated into or surmounted by another similar case, which may be what the experts are referring to. But unless there is prior precedent establishing a law as clearly unconstitutional, the Department of Justice is required to defend it.

http://rennacommunications.com/file_download/42

It's a legal memo from the Palm Center on this subject.

They are under no obligation to appeal, under at least two well-established exceptions to the duty to defend the constitutionality of a law.

I would really like to think the Administration will not appeal, but they really dug themselves into a hole with all the survey BS.