Skip to main content

View Diary: Will President Obama (Continue to) Defend Bigotry? (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, don't buy that (5+ / 0-)

    "Ooooh, President Obama could end the suffering caused by DADT right this moment, but he won't because a Republican president might someday want to continue the suffering, too!"

    President Obama could do both: end the discharges now, and pursue legislation through Congress.

    The soft bigotry of defending DOMA and DADT, is still bigotry and it's not particulary soft, either.

    It's ruining the careers and lives of gays willing to risk their lives for this country, it's killing gay teens and giving their bullies ammunition, telling all that gays aren't deserving of basic civil rights.

    Is President Obama a bigot? Who knows what's in his heart?

    But defending DOMA and DADT is defending bigotry. Bigotry that has been declared unconstitutional, in more than court:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Just so I understand... (0+ / 0-)

      ...are you saying that the ruling, if not appealed, kills DADT forever, or are you saying that it doesn't matter that it might be revived someday because the people who are suffering now deserve relief, even if future service members might be subject to the same suffering?

      Weenie liberals of the world unite! ...soccergrandmom

      by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 01:12:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  President Obama could end discharges NOW (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert

        this moment, this very moment he could end the unconstitutional discharges of gays and lesbians from military service.

        While also pursuing legislation to make those unconstitutional discharges permanent.

        If President Obama doesn't take the opportunity of a Federal Judge's order to end the unconstitutional discharges, it says much about President Obama, and his excuse makers.

        •  I know what can happen NOW, that's not my... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah

          ...question. Does a decision not to appeal kill this thing forever? I've seen conflicting opinions on this. That is the only issue for me. I don't want DADT wounded, I want it dead, forever. I don't want some homophobic Republican President or Congress bringing it back to life in 2, 4, or 6 years, resetting the clock so it takes another 17 years to finally get it to the Supreme Court.

          That does not make me (or the President) a bigot or a defender of bigotry, just as a public attorney representing a convicted pedophile in an appeal does not mean he is "defending" child sexual abuse.

          Saying the President can pursue "legislation to make those unconstitutional discharges permanent" is irrelevant. It's clear that he isn't going to get that legislation passed. He wants Congress to do it from his constitutional lawyer's perspective, but that option is now gone.

          Weenie liberals of the world unite! ...soccergrandmom

          by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 01:59:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But he can end the suffering of DADT discharges (0+ / 0-)

            NOW.

            Which have been declared unconstitutional in three courts.

            To continue defending DADT is to continue defending bigotry, and unconstitutional bigotry, at that.

            Your argument doesn't make sense. (No less the strawman of pedophilia -- and thanks for that disgusting dog whistle non-example thrown into a debate about gay rights.)

            If Obama can't get legislation through now, but he has the power to end the discharges, and he should: morally, ethically and according to three federal judges, legally.

            Ending the discharges also makes successful legislation more likely, and less likely to be overturned by the phantom Republican president of your dreams.

            •  Can he end it forever by not appealing? (0+ / 0-)

              Yes or no (or "I don't know")?

              Weenie liberals of the world unite! ...soccergrandmom

              by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 02:18:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I believe so (0+ / 0-)

                but I'm no lawyer.

                •  so... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...if the answer is no, isn't it remotely possible that the President is pursuing a moral and noble path to a permanent end of DADT, even though he has to endure demeaning and short-sighted commentary from people who can't see the forest for the trees?

                  I'm going to forgive you for the "dog-whistle" commentary, which you know was not my intent. If my mentioning pedophilia in a diary about gay rights triggered an unintended association in your mind, I apologize, and I hope you can overlook my failure to make the same association. Similarly, I managed to overlook the association in my mind that calling the first African-American president a "defender of bigotry" was particularly harsh, since I'm certain it was not your intention to deliver such a low blow.

                  Weenie liberals of the world unite! ...soccergrandmom

                  by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 02:34:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As for forests and trees (0+ / 0-)

                    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

                    The evil of the bigoted discharges continue while the President sits on his hands instead of signing an Executive Order.

                    Which wouldn't exclude continuing to push for legislation to end DADT permanently.

                    But meanwhile, the Obama DOJ continues to defend the bigotry of DOMA and DADT.

                    That's the facts, Jack.

                    Pedophilia dogwhistles aside, those insisting that Obama is somehow working toward gay rights while his administration is actively fighting against those rights, must be either willfully blind, or have other, more sinister reasons.

            •  The Executive Branch's job is to (0+ / 0-)

              uphold CURRENT law.  Despite the ruling from 3 judges so far, it is still a law.  It has not been repealed, nor has it been struck down completely.

              Obama and his justice department don't have a choice in not appealing this law, no matter what their personal feelings.  They would be abdicating their constitutional duty.  You think the repubs might jump on that?  

              •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                There are other cases the Obama administration has not pursued, just as there have been other cases other administrations have not pursued.

                That's a Obama fan talking point, not reality.

                Three Federal judges have now made rulings that DADT is unconstitutional, talk about your constituional duty.

                •  Links for the "not pursued cases", please (0+ / 0-)
                  •  THE LIE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION "MUST" DEFEND DADT (0+ / 0-)

                    you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

                    http://gay.americablog.com/...

                    More examples of why argument that Obama must defend the bigoted DADT and DOMA is a lie:

                    http://gay.americablog.com/...

              •  Rep. Lance Smith already has, trying to intervene (0+ / 0-)

                in Gill, the DOMA case on the ground that DOJ has not defended DOMA zealously enough. He filed a motion to that effect which was reported yesterday.

        •  by his signature on an Executive Order (0+ / 0-)

          using his authority as Commander in Chief and that expressly provided for in the DADT law to maintain military readiness he can order the stop loss of personnel regardless of their status re DADT.  

          We are fighting in at least 2 theaters right now Iraq and Afghanistan.  Add to that Pakistan and Yemen in addition to the multitude of places in the world where we have a presence, our military readiness is stretched thin.  

          If the large numbers of Arabic speaking linguists and intelligence personnel were not fired at the beginning of the Iraq war under DADT, we might be in a different place.   Then again, maybe not.  

          --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

          by chipoliwog on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 02:03:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why the responses to questions I haven't asked? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            You're not talking to someone who's never heard of DADT or is unfamiliar with the perils of miltary unreadiness.

            I am simply saying that calling the President a bigot is wrong if his objective is to get the law killed forever rather than temporarily.

            I'll ask one more time....does not appealing today's decision kill DADT forever? Simple question.

            Weenie liberals of the world unite! ...soccergrandmom

            by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 02:25:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The President may not be a bigot (0+ / 0-)

              but his DOJ is continuing to defend the bigotry of DADT (and DOMA.)

              While the President sits on his hands, instead of doing what he could do to end the bigoted discharges, today.

              What he could have done to end the bigoted discharges any time in the last 22 months.

              "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

              •  And doing so using bigoted language (0+ / 0-)

                You have seen the DOJ briefs filed with the court haven't you?  Disgusting and dishonest and completely unnecessary.

                --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

                by chipoliwog on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I believe it, because that's the same tactic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Giles Goat Boy

      they've taken for other, prior laws or rulings - try to thoroughly beat something down, or validate it, in the courts so that there's no questions left.

      Unfortunately, that left people suffering in the meantime: I think the legal rationale isn't bad, but the lack of support in the meantime - while it's very publicly causing the discharge of fine, enlisted folks - should have been stayed by Executive order while this waited.

      Yes, Gates pushed back on Obama's direction to make this go away from an internal process standpoint early in his presidency, and Obama tends to defer to other branches or departments far too easily (i.e., Reid still complaining about getting the votes they need, etc.), but I don't feel that temporarily staying any further implementation of DADT while waiting for either court or Congressional action would have harmed either effort.

      Sure, Gates and/or Congress would have fought back from a turf war perspective and used the issue to create even more divides during an election year, but it could have been a point to run WITH, instead of AWAY FROM by Democrats this year.  Despite all the hate being tossed around by Republicans, showing a better side could only help with Independents, you'd think.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 01:19:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IMO, the case we need to see, and it may take an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader

        appeal to get it there is a Ninth Circuit affirmance on Witt. The Ninth also putatively found the law unconstitutional but sent it back down for factfinding on the reasoning that there just might be a situation in the case on an as applied basis in which the deferral to the decision of the military might be justified in the instance of Maj. Witt. Lower court factfinding said hell, no, BUT what Witt has in it is something many here want, which is Witt restored to the service, something the LCR decision does not give. LCR only bars future separations and those in the pipeline and finds the act unconstititional, but leaves those previously separated out in the cold, but Witt fixes that and was decided first.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site