Skip to main content

View Diary: I apologize Mr. President (329 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't be sorry. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm very glad the U.S. Senate managed to pass the legislation ending DADT.

    But let us be fair about where the congratulations lay. It lays with those senators (and Reps in the House) who voted for it. Until the bill passed, the criticism of the Obama administration was about its legal defense of DADT in the courts.

    When the US Senate approves bad legislation, I don't blame Obam (unless he had a hand in it). When it fails to pass good legislation, I don't blame the administration (unless it neglected to support that legislation).

    I do give Obama credit for supporting the repeal of DADT, but raspberries for his legal defense of it. The jury is out on implementation.

    If we are to begin crediting Obama for what the US Senate does, let's realize that it's a two-edged sword.

    •  That's not really right: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd, CupofTea, gramofsam1

      the criticism of the defense was premised on the belief that congress wouldn't repeal, and that a laydown was the only tool in the box to battle DADT.

      At least in retrospect, that premise was wrong.  What we got was, a bipartisan repeal, permanent, without anyone being able to say it was forced on the people by some activist judge or some machination by the administration, and without a chance of a future president or court reversing the temporary halt.

      Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

      by Inland on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:56:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see that as being true (4+ / 0-)

        criticism of the defense was premised on the belief that congress wouldn't repeal

        And respectfully, I'm not sure you're the best source to be summarizing the critics' positions.

        Now passing 1,000 Choi Units into the Obama administration.

        by Scott Wooledge on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:17:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, divineorder

        You see, had the administration not defended DADT when it was ruled unconstitutional, then that would have been the end of it.

        Indeed, when DADT was struck down, the military stopped enforcing it (something to do with upholding the U.S. Constitution). But when the DOJ won a stay, it was back in force.

        Now then, what Congress hath passed, it can unpass.

        IMO, the legislative win is great. But allowing the law to remain ruled unconstitutional, well, that's a lot harder to overturn ... UNLESS you appeal the decision.

        I'm sure the Obama administration knows how to walk and chew gum at the same time. Unfortunately it supported the law in the courts while publicly opposing it.

        •  No, it wouldn't have: (0+ / 0-)

          first, it's not going to be final.  Another district court could have a different ruling.]

          Second, it would lookslike Obama is evading the law.  Because he would be: laying down after a decision he favors politically is the sine qua non of putting politics into the judicial system.

          Third, Congress can unpass anything...but that's what democracy is.  If you find congress undoing a congress to be a possibility to be avoided, you've got a problem with democracy.

          Fourth, unilateral action takes the pressure of congress to pass anything, and gives the repubilcans a fairly good reason to cast a protest vote against.

          Best six months ever spent.  

          Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

          by Inland on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 05:46:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please cut the "permanent." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, bluicebank

        There's no such thing as permanent in a democracy.  What one Congress does, another can change.  And in the case of this specific statute, it makes change even easier, since it leaves it to the Pentagon to determine the policy and provides no protections for LGB servicemembers.  The next president is therefore legally empowered to change the policy if he or she wishes, all without any congressional involvement.

        Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:08:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I worry like I worry about slavery coming back. (0+ / 0-)

          Because you're right, nothing's permanent.  But there's no sense worrying about it, and certainly, no sense dismissing the pure inertia of congress.  

          Denounce someone else's lack of courage from safe distance and anonymously!

          by Inland on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 05:47:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No Congress required (0+ / 0-)

            That's precisely the point you're missing.  This statute permits any future administration to change the policy by regulation.  No congressional action will be required.  Just a decision by a future president.

            Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

            by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 08:02:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  He did commission the Pentagon study (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, divineorder, amk for obama

      that gave the repubs and blue dogs enough cover to vote for the repeal.

      Without that study, it would never have gotten past the senate.

    •  Another Obama pre cave deal? (0+ / 0-)

      You wrote:

      The jury is out on implementation.

      Can you believe this?

      Under the bill approved by a Senate vote of 65-31, the president and Pentagon must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military will undergo a 60-day wait period before any changes are made.

      In a statement, Gates said he will begin the process immediately. But, he added, certification won't come until after "careful consultation" with the military service chiefs and combatant commanders.

      Holding my breath until this is implemented... Can even imagine DOJ challenge....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site