|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:19 PM Original message |
Judge Phillips' order killing Don't Ask Don't Tell is a bird in the hand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
msongs (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:21 PM Original message |
only for people who really want DADT killed. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DeSwiss (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:21 PM Response to Original message |
1. DADT they'll defend..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RandomThoughts (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:32 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. heh, they don't get a free pass. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stray cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:33 PM Response to Original message |
3. And can be as transient as a bird in the cats paws |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:37 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. actually Judge Phillips' ruling is just as binding as legislative repeal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GodlessBiker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:37 PM Response to Original message |
5. Obama will have a lot of explaining to do if the lame duck Senate ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:39 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. legally, hs is also now at liberty to write an Executive Order, since DADT is not in effect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Historic NY (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:58 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Unfortunately the Supreme Court can strike down his Executive Order.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 05:02 PM Response to Reply #8 |
10. Wouldn't happen |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:57 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. Obama can not legislate... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 04:59 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. The law is currently dead |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 05:45 PM Response to Reply #9 |
12. IF it is dead he doesn't need an executive order. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 05:55 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. The demise of the law simply means there is nothing explicitly forbidding gay and lesbian soldiers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:00 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Look up article 125 of the UCMJ. More needs to be done. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 05:49 PM Response to Reply #9 |
13. If the law is dead, Article 125 of the UCMJ must be fully enforced... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:01 PM Response to Reply #13 |
16. yes, you've answered your own question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:03 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. An executive order does not remove Article 125. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:07 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. an anti-discrimination EO would be enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:15 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. No, but they can be...even if they are married. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:41 PM Response to Reply #19 |
24. I agree more needs to be done - but the Senate compromise bill doesn't do it either |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:14 PM Response to Reply #24 |
27. Which, if the military wants to be strictly within the lettter of the law... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:34 PM Response to Reply #27 |
32. But you've said you want Congressional repeal rather than this Court ruling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #18 |
20. Exectuive orders are not permanent...The next President can revoke it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:33 PM Response to Reply #20 |
22. Acts of Congress can also be repealed by future Congresses. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ozymanithrax (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:11 PM Response to Reply #22 |
26. Repealing an act requires a vote by the House and the Senate, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:31 PM Response to Reply #26 |
31. we're not debating an Exec Order -vs a Congressional Repeal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 11:19 PM Response to Reply #26 |
35. I am quite well aware that an executive order cannot repeal a law, thank you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:34 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. As I said upthread, t he current comromise bill can be |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dsc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #17 |
25. actually a strong case can be made that Lawerence addresses that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GodlessBiker (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 05:05 PM Response to Reply #7 |
11. It will be his fault that DADT is not dead because he appealed the court decision. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
xchrom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 06:20 PM Response to Original message |
21. Recommend |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Prism (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:21 PM Response to Original message |
28. People defending this appeal should be considered anti-gay from this point forward |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bodhi BloodWave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:31 PM Response to Reply #28 |
30. so your saying somebody who wants to see it appealed up to SCOTUS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:36 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. That's exactly what she did |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Prism (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:58 PM Response to Reply #30 |
34. It *is* struck down for good. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jamastiene (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 08:31 PM Response to Original message |
29. At this point, I believe the only way we will ever get rid of DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
laughingliberal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-17-10 11:57 PM Response to Original message |
36. K & R nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue May 07th 2024, 09:58 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC