I wondered if he would do this.Thank you, Mr. US President.
Over at Joe.My.God., there are a lot of angry gay men (mostly men), who believe this is too little, too late.But I share the belief (of a poster there, "Tallulah") that if this helps save *ONE* life, then it's a welcome contribution from the President.[But would you PLEASE stop appealing the overturn of DADT---esp. when the DOJ isn't appealing a decision favorable to the Wingnuts? (re evangelizing in the National Parks). Gah!]
When I was a bullied gay teen, I only had Nixon to turn to.I can't imagine any previous President even touching this issue, let alone participating in a project initiated by a gay activist. For all of my many complaints about him, Obama can be just wonderful sometimes.Kudos to Dan Savage for creating what may be the most successful pro-gay message project ever.
JCF, the US Dept of Justice legally has to defend DADT, just as it has to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and if it did not defend the laws, then the court would likely allow someone else to step in and defend the laws.One new twist that has recently been suggested, is that the DoJ could add to its defense of the laws that it believes, along with the district courts, that the laws are unconstitutional.
I've heard that, Dahveed . . . but I think there must be SOME discretion (as w/ the case I cited)
They do not HAVE to, and tere are examples where they don't but it is expected theywill.
Well, no they do not HAVE to, but the lawyer in my family with the Juris Doctor from the USA tells me that not to defend it begins to set a very bad precedent for the DoJ.For example, what if the next president is a Republican and ObamaCare looses on the district court level, as both DADT and DoM have. Would you want the precedent to have been set for the DoJ not to defend federal law and the Republican administration, or any other future administration, just lets whatever laws they do not like be set aside on the district level?I mean, hey, it is your country, but that seems a bad precedent to have set on Obama's watch.Question on the National Park example that you site JCF. Does not appealing the ruling limit its effect? Does it then only apply in the appeal's court circuit where the judge's decision was originally made? If so, perhaps the DoJ is trying to limit the damage that a conservative Supreme Court ruling in favor of the law could cause.
But it's not Obama's precedent. If the law is unconstitutional, if a court has so held, and if the administration recognizes the validity of the decision, it is not obligated to appeal further.
This confuses apples with oranges Paul. We are discussing the US DoJ defending US federal law in the US court system's appeals process.But the article to which you refer us cites an example of the Bush era DoJ just not enforcing federal law the Bush administration did not like.Perhaps related ideas, but to me, not the same thing.I guess had Obama wanted to follow the precedent of his predecessor, he would have just told the US SoD to tell the US military to stop applying DADT, which is also something a number of folks publicly advocated when Obama took office.
Post a Comment