DADT ruled unconstitutional
Cortillaen and BooRadley sent us this link about a Federal judge in California who has ruled that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy of allowing gays to serve as long as they stay in the closet during their military careers is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
Phillips says the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.
Whether I agree with the judge’s decision or not, if this is true (I haven’t read the decision) it seems to me that the judge is on a serious political high. Did I mention that she’s a Clinton appointee? First of all, who is she to determine what has a “”direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services”? Courtroom testimony? Please.
I’m pretty sure that she overstepped her authority because no one’s rights were violated by the policy – there’s no right to serve in the military. Ask a recruiter how many prospective recruits get turned away every day for not qualifying for some other reason that being gay.
Yeah, this judge is out to make a name for herself in the gay community
Category: Legal
About time.
Pffft…Joe…you clueless braindead mouthbreather.
Please show me in the Constitution where it is a “RIGHT” to serve in the Armed Forces.
Decision was based on 1st and 5th. I think the main basis is the govt could not show the restrictions placed on homosexual servicemembers (no statement, act, marriage) are necessary because those restrictions on not also placed on straight servicemembers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183082/Decision-finding-DADT-is-unconstitutional
From the case:
Thus, in order for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act to survive Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge, it must “[1] advance an important governmental interest, [2] the intrusion must significantly further that interest, and [3] the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.” Id. Noting the Act “concerns the management of the military, and judicial deference to . . . congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee” in this context, Witt went on to decide
the Act advances an “important governmental interest.” 527 F.3d at 821 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court’s focus turns to the second and third prongs.
Newsflash, J. Neither of those applies.
Joe
You’re a short sighted dickweed. This puts the old military policy of investigating and kicking out gay service members back in place….or is that what you’re hoping for?
So, do you have a recruiter yet, Joe?
Hey, how about this tactic:
Allowing openly homosexual persons to be members of the Armed Forces would enflame Islamic anger against America and could threaten the lives of service members throughout the world. We just can not risk angering the muslim community.
Yeah, and even though it was a just a couple of years before my time, integration was going to destroy the armed services too. Some people just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, dire sky-is-falling predictions notwithstanding. That’s right, they have a name for those people – conservatives.
Joe, integration was fought tooth and nail by Democrats….evidently it was WAY before your time…
HST was a Dem……..
ROS,
I don’t think they take 60 yr. olds….
Just tell them you’re 2 thirty-year-olds.
Joe…
Eliminating DADT is not like integrating the armed forces. One has to do with someone’s sexual behavior. The other has to do with some one’s skin color.
Also, I would argue that the first 25 years of the integrated armed forces were an abject failure. It may have been the right thing to do, but it’s hard to claim that the policy was any sort of success. Race riots were widespread. Units in Vietnam literally broke down, blacks and whites refusing to work with each other. Fratracide was a major problem, especially in the last days of Vietnam when soldiers would throw grenades into the NCO Club in order to kill fellow soldiers of another race. If you think that the integration of our armed forces went off without a hitch, you’re wrong.
“Some people just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world…”
Who are you to drag anyone anywhere? Who appointed you the designated dragger? How about I drag you somewhere? Seriously, do you realize how arrogant you sound? As if no one’s opinion counts except yours.
Ben,
You summed it up: “It may have been the right thing to do…”
Oh, and Joe–there’s a huge difference between 1948 and now. We had a draft back then! The military cared very little about recruitment and retention. So unless you want to draft people, we’re going have to make up for the guaranteed ten percent of military members who will leave the military.
Any ideas, smart guy?
Ah, Joe–but that’s not what you said! You said that integration of the armed forces was supposedly going to destroy them, and that turned out to be a lot of sky-is-falling nonsense.
That’s a lot of bull. It was a nightmare for a good two or three decades.
Is there reason to think that, just because DADT has been ruled unconstitutional, that the military will go back to automatically pursuing gays in uniform? Does that ruling automatically cause the military to fall back on its older laws, or do you think they’ll wait for a clarification on the ruling?
The Government didn’t make an effort on the defense of DADT. That is why the judge ruled against DADT. Don’t just assume they are all activist judges. Sometimes the US government (Executive Branch and cowards in Congress)wants an easy out, rather than doing the hard work and crafting good legislation.
HST was a Dem……..
Eisenhower (R) was integrating units when he was the General of the Army. Truman made it official via executive order….why executive order? Because many of his fellow Dems were in a virtual riot…
Wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be checking first with the Muslim World to see if this is okay with them or whether or not it offends them? Afterall, those are the new rules here in America. Whatever the Muslim World wants, we do. Whatever the Muslim World doesn’t want, we don’t do. Muslim World says ‘jump’, we ask ‘how high?’.
And we have all learned that just because something is Constitutional (burning Korans), does not mean that we should do it. If it offends the Muslim World, then Constitutional or not, we shouldn’t do it.
So the same applies here. So what if allowing homosexuals to serve openly is Constitutional? What matters is… do openly serving homosexuals offend the Muslim World? If so, then well, it doesn’t matter if they have a Constitutional right to serve openly, they shouldn’t do so, because to do so would offend the Muslim World.
So, yeah, this judge needs to ignore the Constitution and better check with Islamic Rage Boy before making her final decision.
Ben,
It may have been a “nightmare”, but what would you have done, keep segregation indefinitely? When would it have been a “good” time to integrate? Would you argue our society would be better off if the armed forces had been segrated for another couple of decades, or were still segregated? Like you said, it may have been the right thing to do, but it was not the easy thing to do. By the way, I would like to reinstate the draft, with options for alternative service, for a number of reasons. I think that idea may scare some professional soldiers.
OldTanker,
Back in ’48, a lot of Democrats were from the deep south (my how times have changed), so their opposition wouldn’t surprise me.
Have a great weekend everyone. Yeehaw!
“Some people just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, dire sky-is-falling predictions notwithstanding. ”
I support the repeal of DADT, but I just want to note this sentence, since it so accurately describes a class of people that would riot just because someone somewhere has done something abstractly offensive, like say, drawing a picture of their Prophet, or burning a copy of their holy text. So, how do you propose we go about dragging them into the modern world Joe?
Okay, Joe–let’s say we let gays serve openly. Not like someone who is homosexual can’t serve now. So are you okay with it when Private Peter Puffer shows up with HIV before a deployment, or has a 30-40 TIMES the STD rate of his straight counterpart? Or his actions are such a distraction as to completely break down unit effectiveness?
Bottom line (so to speak) Joe, are you willing to throw them out when they act like, well, fags? Last time I checked, we still shitcan straight people for adultery, but I don’t see you championing THEIR cause. And really, how many OPENLY gay people are going to rush to join the day after (if) DADT is repealed? Seriously?
Go easy on Joy, er, I mean Joey. He’s just projecting his ideas and feelings on something he’s never been a part of, and doesn’t really understand, at all. I imagine that Joey hears the word, “cohesion” and pictures guys belly to butt, and gets all warm and fuzzy feelings.
Joey has not yet come to the realization that there is no “right” to serve, so he thinks that the military is much like bus drivers, or MessNBC hosts and hostesses, everyone can, so they have to be PC.
NHsparky,
Those two grounds apply as long as that is what the decision says. I am just stating the facts of the grounds the case was decided on.
Also, they already screen and regularly test for HIV, so that is a moot point.
Up north,
the case isn’t based on a right to serve. Read the decision and see if you don’t believe me.
So, J, then you’ll point out where exactly the judge outlined the “direct and deleterious” effect DADT has had on the armed forces? How DADT actually undermines unit cohesion, good order and discipline? And, actually, reading the “learned” judges opinion, I’m of the opinion that she just had to make it up to those serving quietly, that they can’t brag about their dates, dinner companions and live-ins. That’s so unfair that the military absolutely must be made to pay. So, yeah, this case actually does go to right to serve.
If the judge accepted the government’s position on #1, she just buried her head in the sand on #’s 2 and 3, so she could legislate from the bench.
J–no they don’t. Only when transferring commands or reenlisting. Not as a part of normal physicals, and I’ve been subjected to a few more than you (submarine, nuclear, etc.)
Next, show me where gays/lesbians are PROHIBITED from serving. I know you’ll try, but I also know you’ll fail.
@NH
“Last time I checked, we still shitcan straight people for adultery”
Actually, no ‘we’ don’t, or more accurately, there is no immediate punishment for adultery. The USMJ as it stands today makes adultery a secondary circumstance to the ‘higher’ crime of ‘actions damaging unit effectiveness’, and can be handled by the local commander utilizing non-judicial punishment. Adultery by it’s self will no longer get you kicked out. I believe this changed in the late 80’s/early 90’s, I’ll bow to anyone with more info.
Also, it’s my understanding that the US Army screens for HIV every 6 months, I know we were tested at the State Guard level every year for over a decade.
Oooops, UCMJ………
http://www.baerensound.com/3276/zufrieden-sein-das-neue-album-von-vincent-fernando|4