Is the DOJ legally obligated to appeal the DADT ruling?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/doj-accused-of-hypocrisy-_n_771722.html

DoJ Accused Of Hypocrisy For Appealing DADT While Letting Park Proselytizing Ruling Stand

Less than a week before the Obama administration's Department of Justice appealed a judge's ruling that the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is unconstitutional, it elected to let stand a court ruling allowing religious groups to proselytize in federal parks.

In a little-noticed decision last Thursday, the DoJ let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that small groups wishing to gather and demonstrate at national parks no longer have to obtain a permit from the National Park Service. The Department's decision to let that ruling stand while challenging, days later, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' decision to overturn DADT on constitutional grounds are not topically related. But it did spur another round of criticism that the administration is either insensitive or hypocritical when it comes to gay rights.

"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

Nicholson's statement echoed similar arguments from gay-rights activists (including Ted Olson, the Bush administration's solicitor general) who have challenged the notion that the DoJ must defend the laws on the books, regardless of how objectionable they are. But there is an important political nuance that separates DADT from the park service's regulation and guided the department's thinking with respect to both.

--snip--

That pretty much settles it.

You don't have to like him - but he would know.

wrote that the President doesn't have to defend a law in court. Dellinger! That dude who was Assist. AG under Clinton.

People here do one of two things: they either repeat the message that the DOJ has to appeal over and over again, a tactic used by Republicans to drown out the truth; or they mislead people by equating not appealing with the President striking down a law himself. Only Congress or the Courts can do that. The President, if he believes it's unconstitutional, can force them to do it.

He was only a Solicitor General arguing the Executive Department's
cases before the Supreme Court.

Clearly the four DUers who say there is a duty to defend know
better than Ted.

Tesha

If the law required all prosecutors to appeal until finality, every case lost by the government would have to be appealed, and then appealed to the next level, and so on, until the Supreme Court denies their appeal.

The Attorney General has to decide when the government has to give up a matter, whether it is due to bad facts or evolving law.

"We're not going to appeal it," would make DADT a bigger issue for the election and Obama doesn't want that. I don't like it, but that's his thinking.

There is established precedent in court rulings saying that national parks are subject to rules of free assembly.

There is NOT established precedent on DADT. An opinion poll on DU doesn't change the facts.

If it has a precedent, it's alright. But that's like saying existence was created by God. So, who created God, then?

Precedents are given all the time that are related by legal principal, but cover different subjects that were argued in other cases.

But keep making up imaginary reasons why we don't deserve our rights. That's the only reason why you troll this forum. We know it. You know it. Why you're allowed to keep doing it is a mystery. x(

What is your reason for hating the idea of us getting equal rights?

Shocking!

It's a dank, heavy smell, reminiscent of fear and sensibilityness.

Truth is more important than politics and human rights are more important than the politicians that oppose those rights

for one reason or another.

Perhaps providing political cover for Obama's inaction is more important than supporting the LGBTQI community. Or perhaps they don't want this administration to really spend any political capital, time or effort granting rights (special rights?) to the LGBTQI community.

For whatever reason, facts don't really matter, and aren't penetrating. They like the idea that Obama isn't doing what he could to support the repeal of DADT.

And yet, many of these same people claim they are our allies. With friends like these... :(

We're not cool like the economy or health care.

and use that as proof that they're good people who stand up for civil rights without ever actually doing anything to really support civil rights.

They think that occasional Words are good enough without doing anything or supporting any Actions to back it up, treating us like fond pets instead of equals and real people who really, truly deserve real rights, right now. :(