Skip to main content

I've heard this complain many times.  

Why doesn't Obama just do what Truman Did - and sign an Executive Order banning DADT?

Simple Answer: Because he can't do that, and the reason why is named : Bob Dole.

Y'see, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't just a matter of policy or regulation - it's a matter of law which was passed by Congress and unfortunately for those who think Obama can waive his magical executive wand and ignore the law, he can't.

First on the issue of an Executive Order, from the President himself.

Obama: Point Number two, the difference between my position and Harry Truman's is that Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the Executive Branch to end this unilaterally. This is not a situation that with the stroke of a pen, I can end this policy.

In his book, My Life Bill Clinton describes how it was Bob Dole who pushed forward the DADT Law as a way to block Clinton's then stated goal of ending the Military's Gay Ban.  The President may be "Commander in Chief" but it is Congress who makes the rules for the Military.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As a result of Bob Dole's move, DADT is listed within the U.S. Codes. - it's not simply a set of regulations, it is the law.

The point here is that when Congress passes a Law, the President can't just Ignore It and do what he wants to do anyway.  He has to either change the law, which Obama has been working on doing with the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate, or the law would have to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

We've had another President who used to pretend that laws were optional.  That President thought he had the power to ignore Geneva with the stroke of a pen, until the Supreme Court told him otherwise with Hamdan v Rumsfeld.  We had a President who didn't think he had to follow the FISA law.  Since then Congress has changed that law to give the President more wiggle room with the so-called "FISA Fix".  Congress also passed the Detainee Treatment Act as well as the Military Commissions Act which erased Habaeus for foreign enemy combatants, until the SCOTUS restored it with Baumediene.

President Obama tried to close Gitmo with the stroke of a pen, but Congress hasn't funded it's replacement yet - so Gitmo remains open since we have no other place to put them currently.

I have also heard the argument that Obama could use "Stop Loss" to prevent the separation required by DADT?  That is incorrect, because Stop Loss is not a Law, (Correction: No, Actually it is a Law that brought in during Vietnam, more on this here) it's a policy that was implemented by the Military and for which Congress was only briefed about.  The only thing Congress has done with Stop Loss is to extend pay for it, but Congress didn't put it in place.

Lastly there is the argument that the Obama DOJ Shouldn't Appeal the DADT ruling - but that's not a very good idea.

Former Clinton Admin Solicitor General Walter Dellinger explains why.

I think the government really has not choice but to appeal the case, because we don't want a situation where a single federal judge can repeal and act of Congress.  Imagine three years down the road if someone is challenging Health Care, over the individual mandate or minimum coverage requirements and we have a Republican President, and they find one Federal District Judge who finds that it's unconstitutional.

...

You wouldn't want a situation where the government would say "Well, we're just not going to appeal

So, even though the President wants to end the policy - the Justice Department should appeal because simply dropping the case because of the ruling of one judge is a horrible way to make policy.  The Judge has issued a stay order, but the DOJ will appeal even if they have no real intention of winning the case are only doing so as a pro forma measure to push this issue ultimately to the Supreme Court.  Once the SCOTUS rules - the law is changed.

Now the current defense authorization bill in front of the Senate also ends this policy - and there is only one bill - so either we repeal DADT and fund our military this year or we don't.  

The policy is not over, not until either the Senate or the SCOTUS acts and right now the odds are good that both might in fact do so - but they haven't done it yet and other than cheerleading the Senate on the issue, Obama's hands are largely tied.

So stop beating him up over it, he's doing the right thing.  It may not be
pretty right now, but we'll get to the goal we all want. Soon.

Vyan


Update: More on the Stop-Loss Argument.  This Study http://www.palmcenter.org/... from last year states that the President has authority under 10 USC 12305 to suspend the law.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304  of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

The question I have with this is whether this would be only an individual case-by-case basis where the individual person being separated has to be shown to be essential or can it be more broad.  The other problem with this is that it would only last for as long as that determination held, so another President - or SecDef acting in his stead - could reverse this rule just as easily.

One thing is certain, the President isn't aware of this study or opinion - which as I noted is a fairly new understanding - because his understanding seems to be exactly as mine was.

Originally posted to Vyan on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:29 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  you know what's magical? (24+ / 0-)

      the idea that DADT that already failed by 17 votes in the Senate is somehow going to pass in the lame duck or the 112th Congress.

      Oh, but Obama has a super-secret, magical plan and the gays should just pipe down asking him not to repeal the LCR decision or use the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY ENDOWED by the DADT law to stop investigations and halt discharges.

      Disingenous straw argument is what this diary is about.

      "Stop The Discharges" is now what is being asked of Obama. Everyone knows he can't unilaterally dispose of that law.

      But everyone who lives in the reality based world also realizes legislative repeal is now a long shot, and while we've waited two years for the magical, super-secret plan 1,000 good soldiers have been fired for being gay under Democratic leadership. The time for change is past due.

      Issue the stop-loss order, Obama. You have the power, you don't the will.

      Trickle down Equality isn't working

      by Scott Wooledge on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:33:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  a bit factually incorrect (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, JesseCW, unspeakable
      President Obama tried to close Gitmo with the stroke of a pen, but Congress hasn't funded it's replacement yet - so Gitmo remains open since we have no other place to put them currently.

      Obama's stroke of the pen was to close the detention center within Gitmo, not Gitmo itself.
      Gitmo isn't closing.. only the detention center within Gitmo.. please read the executive order concerning this again.

      Obama's other stroke of the pen was to transfer detainees to either facilities in the US or to facilities in other parts of the world.

    •  This diary is a cesspool . . . (16+ / 0-)

      . . . of ignorance and venality.

      Under existing law, the President can indeed end DADT.

      There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says.  First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, "Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation"  Under the law "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" during a "period of national emergency."  The statute specifically defines a "national emergency" as a time when "members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty."

      The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the "don’t ask, don’t tell" legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense... in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation."  Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members "if" a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the "authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made."

      In other words, as the President is making nth-dimensional chess moves in pursuit of his super-secret plan to pass repeal of the law itself by Congress, we could have two years (with an option on four more) of gays openly serving in the military. We could stop forcing gay soldiers, sailors, guardsman, airmen, and marines to lie to their friends and co-workers. We could demonstrate that the status quo, in which our military employs gay servicemen and -women, can be maintained. We could demonstrate that there is no loss of efficiency or readiness from simply acknowledging the way things already are in the military. We could end discrimination and uphold our greatest moral and ethical standards for the treatment of others.

      And most importantly, we could stop destroying the relationships and careers of men and women who commmit to serve our nation, to put their lives on the line in defense of us all we are, and all for which we stand.

      That this was not done in January 2009 is a testament to the moral cowardice of the President and his Administration. No amount of excuse-making by the President's superfans will change that.

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:51:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for a great explanation. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA
      •  I think you may have meant "Counterfactual (0+ / 0-)

        gibberish and poorly thought excuses for insisting on persecuting and prosecuting Gays and Lesbians".

        Oh.  It's you.  The target audience.

        Nevermind...

        Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

        by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:11:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  DADT will end like a slow rotting house-- (11+ / 0-)

    eroding bit by bit until the whole ugly thing collapses from its own weight.

    Basic astrophysics--how stars die.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:33:54 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for this (22+ / 0-)

    I understand why everyone wants DADT ended - I want it gone too!  But I want it GONE.  Legally.  Finally.

    No stopgaps, no half-measures, not something that can be overturned by the next Republican President.

    This President taught Constitutional law.  He knows what he can and cannot do, and I believe he wants to do this in such a way that it will be permanent.

    I'm with him on that.

    "An uprising of the reasonable is our only chance." - Keith Olbermann

    by Diogenes2008 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

  •  It sucks...but it's true. (12+ / 0-)

       Tipped and recced.

    Don't Let The Repubs Break Your Government Again...Vote for Dems (except Blanche let her be the Blue-Dog lesson).

    by reddbierd on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:38:33 AM PDT

  •  What annoys me most (23+ / 0-)

    is that they are specifically going out of there way to challenge the challenges to this law in the courts. That speaks more clearly to me than anything else.

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

    •  But, as was pointed out in another diary, (9+ / 0-)

      right now, the court ruling isn't law of the land, and it doesn't set precedent that any other court MUST follow. If it goes to SCOTUS, it WILL BE.

      - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

      by second gen on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine, Appeal then, but don't defend! (5+ / 0-)

        The Justice Department can appeal the law, and state that the law should be struck down as unconstitutional.  The justice department is under no obligation to defend a law that it thinks is unconstitutional.

        And the President of the United States, acting as Commander in Chief, can issue a stop loss order TODAY ending any and all pending discharges to protect military readiness.

        And the President of the United States can ACTIVELY work to pass the repeal by picking up the phone and calling reticent Senators as our "Fierce Advocate"

        You are absolutely correct that the President can not overturn an act of congress through executive order, however he certainly can end DADT today in any of a myriad of ways.

        The fact is, that while President Obama is not Dumbledore, he's no "fierce advocate" or "change we (the GLBT community)can believe in" either.

        We'll Give when we GetEQUAL!

        by bogbud on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  woops... 'appeal the decision' not the 'law' eom. (0+ / 0-)

          We'll Give when we GetEQUAL!

          by bogbud on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:51:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One argument has (11+ / 0-)

          been to cut funding for reinforcement of DADT. Or Obama can argue enforcement to take 20 years per case. Or at very least say that no other people can be fired until this is resolved. He has done none of this except get mad at people who call him on this. Because at the heart of things, they blame the base more than the Republicans for all of the problems. We should just shut up and let him triangulate.

          Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

          by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:06:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Making the argument that it's (0+ / 0-)

          Unconstitutional is what the Log Cabin Republicans have done, DOJ is the defense against that argument.  

          And the President of the United States, acting as Commander in Chief, can issue a stop loss order TODAY ending any and all pending discharges to protect military readiness.

          Not if that order violates the law, which it would in the case of DADT.

          And the President of the United States can ACTIVELY work to pass the repeal by picking up the phone and calling reticent Senators as our "Fierce Advocate".

          Their in recess so let's see what happens during lame duck, he may not have to do that yet because either they pass what they have or we have no defense budget.

          •  In the matter of determining whether DADT (0+ / 0-)

            affects readiness etc., one of the things which would be relevant in that determination is the infernal report, which is DOD's determination of how to deal with readiness and unit cohesion issues. Due Dec. 1.

            It's a helluva lot less controversial and difficult to fight against if a determination under stop loss is based not on politics alone, as those here seem to prefer because it is seven weeks faster, but on DOD's own report, waved busily. That report is the formal ammunition for the factual determinations stop loss requires, and DOD can't go back on it once it has issued it.

            If it comes out as the hints suggest, the way those here want, the Congress is faced with a choice it cannot avoid, the more so for it having insisted on the report, Either they pass the Appropriations bill with DADT which they have to do anyway or bring the troops home from everywhere right now, or O, armed with the report and the constitutonal cases, does a stop loss order. Their prerogatives as a Chamber are at stake because it's going with them or without them. And all those who withheld votes pending  infernal report can no longer use that as an excuse.  As it is, investigations, etc are suspended pending the determination of the stay applications, so if Col. Fehrenbach is not out now, he's not going anywhere until this is over.

          •  I don't have a problem with that. (0+ / 0-)

            or we have no defense budget

            Just sayin'...

            (And I would certainly support special emergency appropriations to bring the troops home. I don't want to leave them stranded.)

            Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

            by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:42:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Read the brief filed in connection with the app (0+ / 0-)

          for the stay pending appeal by DOJ. One of the things the stay app must show is that there are grounds for appeal and it is likely to prevail on them, which means that what they have in mind to appeal has to be in there.

          And look what that is. It challenges the remedy, the injunction issue as to whether the District Court for Riverside COunty CA can bar the First Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts from acting on cases before them or enforce judgements they entered, or will enter, because this one DC did what it did as a remedy. Although that issue is in this case, it's also an issue in a lot of other cases where a shortcut here may cost a lot in the other cases that are not DADT. It questions whether this was properly tried as a facial challenge. Those are the grounds.

          The principal issue presented is a request to let the DOD Report get done and come in first, and get regulations written. Estimated time frame to the court for writing regs is months. Not years. And points out that the matter is before Congress and that an appeal may be moot before it is heard.

          IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY FINDINGS, and points out that O and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef support his view that this is wrong. Hint, hint.

      •  In that other court, who will be suing who... (4+ / 0-)

        ...for what?

        and it doesn't set precedent that any other court MUST follow

        Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

        by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:59:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Going to the Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen

          makes it a precedent for the whole country so no other court case will be needed.

          "We have cast our lot with something bigger than ourselves" - President Obama, July 30, 2010

          by Overseas on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And going to the SC (8+ / 0-)

            will take at least 2 years, if Roberts and Co. decide to take it. If you are married, could we take away that right for 2 years? All the while putting our country at risk and wasting millions of dollars. For what?

            Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

            by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:07:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the Ninth affirms it, SCOTUS will have (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Overseas

              no choice but to consider it because earlier this year, the First Circuit issued its decision on another case that is mutually exclusive with a Ninth Circuit opinion fixing the mistakes and affirming this one as fixed. Reconciling two circuits with divergent orders, especially when nationwise injunctions are involved, is precisely what SCOTUS is there to do.

            •  Gladkov, (0+ / 0-)

              I lived with my man as his partner for 5 years, happily. Then we got married and it was little different than being his partner. Seriously. That lasted 15 years, probably 10 years longer than it should have. Then I discovered the hell of divorce. It would have been easier and better just living with him. Take 2 years out? Eh, why not.

              "We have cast our lot with something bigger than ourselves" - President Obama, July 30, 2010

              by Overseas on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:47:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I just want to know the rest of the arguement. (4+ / 0-)

            In this case in another court that folks keep talking about, who is suing who for what?

            I see the beginnings of a couple of arguements in favor of appeal here, but the folks making the arguements don't seem to finish them.

            All that I see is half of the arguement. What's the rest?

            Who is suing who for what?

            Is somebody suing the government to eliminate DADT after it had already died?

            Is somebody suing the government to bring back DADT?

            Will somebody please tell me the rest of this particular arguement? I can't evaluate it without seeing the complete arguement.

            Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

            by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:09:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right now it's about the appeal (0+ / 0-)

              if they don't appeal and have this reviewed and affirmed at the appellate and SCOTUS level some other plaintiff (most likely a military homophobe) would then have potential standing to reverse this injunction.

              I think his argument would be ridiculous, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to find a sympathetic Federal Judge, just remember Joe Miller was a Federal Magistrate not that long ago.

            •  The death may happen but there is a First Circuit (0+ / 0-)

              opinion issued this year exactly contra to this one, which upheld the discretion of the military based on its own evaluation of service requirements, unconstitutionality be hanged. That one, Pietrangelo v Gates, is already in, and is mutually exclusive with the LCR decision and with Witt and of a higher order of rank than the LCR court.

              Assuming a plaintiff with standing be found, any other Federal court can take a case on this subject, and decide it differently, because this is a District Court opinion. This is not precedent which must be followed without a good reason to disagree, because it is a DC case.

              Any such other case would not be binding on LCR members, but rather its own plaintiffs, whoever they might be. And it would be appealed because the Federal courts cannot tolerate one case ordering a national injunction on anything at all, and another denying the whole thing.

              Any other  federal court, including another DC,  having a case in hand and surviving a motion to dismiss for standing, has the right to and can simply say "I see the LCR case but disagree with its reasoning for reason blah blah blah, and decline to follow it." Any other DC can try that with a Circuit court decision, other than its own, but it has to figure out why the Circuit case decision does not apply to its case, more forcefully if the Circuit whose decision it is trying to buck is its own Circuit.

              So far, there is no public word of a new case, but with Pietrangelo v. Gates, a First Circuit decision, the problem is already out there.

          •  except that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, unspeakable, m00finsan

            This is a lousy court to get a just precedent out of.  I think the Congress still needs to act but again, the administration and the Congressional leaders are chickenshit in doing anything bold and challenging Republicans.

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

            by chipoliwog on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:23:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Fine (4+ / 0-)

        Let Citizens for Bigtotry take it to court. In the mean time, the country can see it can work with no problems. When don't need the DOJ doing the dirty work when this has been ruled unconstituional.

        And I'm not counting on the SC either. Can we count on Kennedy or even Kagan? Not sure at all.

        Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

        by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:03:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  with no appeal other court cases are moot (3+ / 0-)

        DADT affects the president's administration of the military, if he doesn't appeal, DADT is dead. Dellinger above is a liar. No one else has standing to appeal. With DADT dead, other court cases to kill it become moot. Cases asking reinstatement could continue but this could be eliminated by a reinstatement policy.

        The big problem with the Supreme court is that there may be enough bigots on the court to twist law to create a bad precedent. Dellinger is also lying that failure to appeal sets some precedent - Clinton for instance accepted a district court overturn of a law restricting HIV positive people.

        The reality is that Obama is a homophobic fraud.

      •  That's no excuse for requesting an injunction (0+ / 0-)

        allowing them to keep kicking people out in the meantime.

        Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

        by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:29:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And DADT is just 1 of 1000 ways bigotry is legal (12+ / 0-)

      This slow, unmethodical, incoherent, passive-aggressive, incremental approach to civil rights is stunningly indefensible.

      "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy," Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

      by kck on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What annoys me is that they are practically (15+ / 0-)

      silent about it. You don't see any pressure coming from the White House to end it and end it now. The only time they talk about it is when they are asked, and then they act insulted that anyone questions the commitment to end it.

      And it's not just DADT that they do this with. The administration rarely states what it wants and expects out of Congress. They act like innocent bystanders who are incapable of doing anything. We need a fierce advocate, and there is not one to be seen in the White House.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:48:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In other words (14+ / 0-)

        for Obama to be a leader. He's tried the bipartisan game, that didn't work. Obama wants big changes but he doesn't want the heat for making the big decisions. But here, this is something like 78% of the public supports.

        Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

        by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I had an exchange about this in another (11+ / 0-)

        diary with someone who insisted that Obama couldn't do anything because of separation of powers.  It's like some people don't want to acknowledge that the president has a bully pulpit and can actually advocate for things that he (and hopefully someday she) believes in.  I almost think that there are some here who want their president powerless.  But at the same time, they also say that he's a great change maker.  So how can a change maker be powerless or someone powerless be a change maker?

        •  When has he NOT advocated for its repeal? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, Tulips

          He's come out quite strongly with his bully pulpit.  He was doing it just the other day - categorically, emphatically, and without reservation stating that the policy WILL end.  

          The thing people don't get is that there IS a separation of powers issue here and there's also a serious issue of how to restructure the military's rules regarding conduct and in addition to that how to deal with issues like benefits for gay service members' loved ones.  

          •  When he had his secretary of defense (8+ / 0-)
            as well as his press secretary speak for him. The real question is why don't you know this?
          •  Oh really? (8+ / 0-)

            He's come out quite strongly with his bully pulpit

            Please cite when he PERSONALLY has spoken in public about DADT, when not asked by journalists or heckled into it?

            In fact, I can't even think of a journalist fielding him a question in the last year. Just Gibbs.

            The only time in the last 2 years he's personally spoken on it pro-actively is the two lines in the SOTU address.

            A far cry from "strongly using the bully pulpit."

            Trickle down Equality isn't working

            by Scott Wooledge on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:07:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I see. So by your lights the only way he can (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA, Tulips

              be sincere is if he's sitting around one day and says "Gibbs, bring in the press.  I want to say something spontaneous and unsolicited about how much I hate DADT so as not to appear insincere by simply waiting for someone to ask me the question."

              Yeah, that makes sense.

              •  Non-responsive (7+ / 0-)

                When did he use the "bully pulpit?"

                Trickle down Equality isn't working

                by Scott Wooledge on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:40:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What? You think there's a "thing" called the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FiredUpInCA, Tulips

                  bully pulpit?  Are you saying he's never made any statements on this issue? Because if you are, there's a perfectly good video in this very diary proving you're wrong.  

                •  I'd say YOUR answer is non-responsive (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FiredUpInCA

                  He's made plenty of statements, but look at your qualifiers.  He's not entitled to point to the times he did in response to a question from a journalist or from a heckler?  Why not?  You're pretending that an answer to a journalist - which he HAS MADE on several occasions doesn't count - and that an answer to hecklers on the issue, which HE HAS MADE, don't count either so you can claim that he really hasn't done it.  In other words, you're trying to fix it so that you win the argument by declaring everything but a spontaneous declaration from his lips - OTHER THAN AT THE SOTU (because THAT was an unsolicited statement) - is not enough to suit your desire to see him declare support for ending DADT.  

                  This is pathetic.  When I was a child other kids used to try to fix arguments in their favor using the same method, but it's just as silly coming from an alleged adult as it is coming from a kid.  You're SO bent on proving that he's NOT supporting repeal that you're trying to exclude all the times he's made it clear he wants to end it.  

          •  Not a chance (7+ / 0-)

            Clarknt67's comment echoes my own thoughts, show me where he's actually used the bully pulpit for this or any other LGBT issue.

            And compare that with what reliable sources say about where he promised to, and didn't:

            http://www.politifact.com/...

            •  You've already got the video from his (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA

              appearance on MTV and there are plenty of other videos floating around.  The problem with you single issue types is that you want him out there every day talking about it instead of all the other boring things he has to talk about like our impending financial catastrophe or jobs or health care or anything that isn't about gays in the military.  Get real.  The man's already got enough on his plate without having to set aside time to try to appear spontaneous enough to placate all the haters out there who will never be satisfied ... and that's his so-called base.  We're not even talking about what he has to deal with from people parading around with pictures of him in a Hitler mustache.  

              •  "single-issue types" (4+ / 0-)

                Screw you.

                My civil rights are not a "single issue", they're a fundamental human right.

                (And when you mention health care, don't forget that it was the Dems who threw equal access to health care for LGBTs out of health care reform.)

              •  Actually, I wasn't harsh enough. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emsprater, Aunt Martha, Clarknt67

                My "single issue" is health care access.  And equal access in California to long term care insurance.  And confronting issues of teen suicides.  And employment discrimination.  And the social costs of discrimination.  And equal access to immigration.  And a dozen other issues.

                The ONLY thing "single" about the issues I work hardest about is that they are issues that a particular community is singled out for inequality for.

                Your framing of all these issues as a single issue demonstrates your alignment with the idea of singling out that community, because the ONLY thing "single" here isn't the topic (health care, employment, etc.), the ONLY thing "single" here is "the Queers".

                In other words, your choice of framing demonstrates your own bigotry.

                You, sir, are a bigot.

              •  You're pretty good at making shit up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aunt Martha

                and then arguing against it.

                "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security." -Obama

                by heart of a quince on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:48:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Catzmaw includes responding to hecklers (4+ / 0-)

              at fundraisers as using his bully pulpit. It's a very sliding scale.

              Trickle down Equality isn't working

              by Scott Wooledge on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:49:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Frankly what I would like to know is what (0+ / 0-)

              pressure the complainers here put on the 41 who did not vote for cloture on DADT. They are the ones withholding votes, on whom pressure would or might accomplish something. O got the repeal in the biggest bill of the year and he and the Dems kept it in the bill and all Ds went for it, but it cannot be that everyone here is in a state with two D  senators.

          •  Part of what 'the people' don't get is that (0+ / 0-)

            a bully pulpit works where public pressure on elected officials who have decisions directly before them affects those officials, but those who do not listen to that and have the decision before them is a waste of bully pulpit time. In a Party of No situation, the bully pulpit is of limited effect because the voting legislators have in their own ears already turned off the microphone.

            The kind of conversation which works with them and with DOD is not the public pressure kind.

            Half the trick of a hunt for votes is using the right method. A great fishhook has little effect on a moose.

            •  Part of what 'the people' don't get is why (0+ / 0-)

              a president who claims to be a fierce advocate is not using his bully pulpit to fiercely advocate.  Whether or not that changes any Republican votes, it changes the narrative, which in and of itself can exert pressure.

              •  Then the question is do 'the people' want the (0+ / 0-)

                result, or do they want the satisfaction of listening to bully pulpeting, followed by a failure of result and the opposition honking its horn to the effect that they were bullied and stood up against it for (whatever they call their position). Sometimes that is the choice.

                Bully pulpeting works for those who can allow themselves to be affected by it, but that is not generally republicans whose party discipline forbids their being affected by any sort of reality other than the power they can project by it. They do their bullying in private, and that method works for them.  What good is bullying Dems who took the risk and voted for it, and were one vote short, when ALL Dems voted for it.

        •  This crowd, though, simply don't understand (0+ / 0-)

          that he's CiC.

          I think they really believe he has to persuade the Generals, rather than issue orders.

          They think it's great that he ordered DoJ to stop prosecuting medical marijuana clinics, even though they violate Federal Law.

          Yet, they claim he would have to be a horrible tyrant to order the DoD to stop prosecuting people....for being gay.

          Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

          by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:36:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Do you suppose this may be why the DOJ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas, Diogenes2008, bushondrugs

    is appealing? To force it to go to SCOTUS?

    - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

    by second gen on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:40:03 AM PDT

  •  This is a well argued diary. (16+ / 0-)

    I've tried to stay out of these diaries, since they turn into pie fights quickly...and honestly, I've been a bit unsure of how to think about what the DOJ has been doing.

    I was active duty for 12 years, and served with many folks that I knew were gay at the time.  I find DADT to be utterly repugnant, since I saw how the law impacted the lives of these honorable men and women.

    I'm all for making the repeal/invalidation of DADT bullet proof against any future attempts by the Republicans to bring it back.

    Tipped and Rec'd.

    "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

    by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:41:23 AM PDT

    •  That's my biggest worry. If it's not done (11+ / 0-)

      right, it can always be reinstated.

      - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

      by second gen on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:42:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too. (11+ / 0-)

        Especially if the Republicans ever manage to get another fundie bigot into the White House.

        We already saw the damage that one idiot could do when they ignored the law.

        "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

        by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:45:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And that's what Obama was saying last (11+ / 0-)

        year.  He wanted legislation passed so that it couldn't be overturned by another President.

        Thank you so much for this diary!

        I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

        by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:57:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What I would like to see... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chipoliwog

          however, is the DOJ to not ask for a stay of the judges injunction.

          That would make me feel much better about what the DOJ is doing with respect to the appeal.

          "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

          by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:01:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, they don't ask for a stay while they (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catzmaw, Bonsai66, ETF, ParkRanger, FiredUpInCA

            appeal. Thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers come out. It goes to SCOTUS and the RW tools at SCOTUS strike down the ruling. Now, you have thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers who are openly serving who will be discharged.

            Appealing, while at the same time working to get the law changed in Congress is the best course of action. If SCOTUS strikes it down, maybe by then, Congress would have already repealed it.

            - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

            by second gen on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:11:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is a very plausible... (3+ / 0-)

              scenario, however, the sheer volume of these cases would probably make it virtually impossible for the military system to process them.

              It would swap the JAG corps of the various branches, and they wouldn't have any time to work on anything else.

              So technically, you are correct about that risk, but the practical aspects of the situation would make is less feasible.

              "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

              by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We're talking about Republicans. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bonsai66, ETF, ParkRanger, FiredUpInCA

                They would shut down the government to investigate a blow job...

                - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

                by second gen on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:31:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  True. (0+ / 0-)

                  And I'd hate to see what Issa will manufacture if we lose the House in November.

                  However, they wouldn't be able to commission enough new JAG officers fast enough in order to process the new case load.

                  It would be overwhelming...and besides, most JAG officers wouldn't like to work that hard...it would cut into their beer drinking.

                  ;-)

                  "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

                  by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  We are also talking about soldiers and their... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emsprater, JesseCW

                  ...families and friends, who would use the opportunity to change the social and political environment that those Republicans need to swim in.

                  78% of the public is behind allowing gays to serve openly right now.

                  Do we need to wait for 100%?

                  Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

                  by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The polling figure sounds so good, but if (0+ / 0-)

                    seventy five percent is for this, why do we hear none of this from the R contests or the Tea Party candidates, who don't seem to have gotten that memo. If it were that popular, they would know it and be acting on it.

                    Part of the problem with using that number as if it were that percentage of every state is that it isn't that percentage of every state, and a lot of the little states with disproprotionately big representation are R states. IIRC the common wisdom is that twenty five percent of the people, depending on their location, control the Congress.  

                    •  Wait. If 78% are for it why don't we (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      banach tarski paradox

                      hear anything in favor of it from the 22% that isn't?

                      Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

                      by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not all of the Tea party and Republicans are (0+ / 0-)

                        from the teeny tiny R states, and save for that one who came out yesterday, Gary Thompson, not one has been willing that I know of to support repeal of DADT. Straight party line IIRC. Which they think they can do and do do despite the 78% repeal support, and get elected and will probably get reeelected doing it here in another month.

                        Given the Party line position, R opponents need say nothing, and probably arent' in those places where saying they oppose would hurt them. Which means somebody hasn't asked them forcefully enough. If one can picket O, one can picket them in swing districts. Is that being done?

                        THAT is why everyone interested in DADT has to work between now and election day to keep Rs out, for the stupid reason that every last one but Thompson is a vote against putting DADT in next term, if it doesn't get through in the Lame Duck. One may not like O's method of getting to repeal, but that method's chances of success are lessened if the House is R and the Party line vote prevents all those Dems we have been working to elect, better in our opinion or not, are shut out as they were in 1994-5.

            •  Creating facts on the ground IS the permanent... (8+ / 0-)

              ...solution.

              Here in Iowa, the unanimous decision in Varnum v Brian overturning was only a temporary solution to the Iowa DOMA.

              But the decision by its very nature has been creating facts on the ground ever since, whose cumulative effect is to make the decision very difficult if not impossible to reverse.

              Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

              by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:33:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And it was an accident that within five days of (0+ / 0-)

                the decision, DOD came down with the suspension, ordered through JAG? Facts on the ground are being made as we speak.

                •  The DoD is requesting a Stay on the order so (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  banach tarski paradox

                  that they can get back to kicking folks out.

                  Keep up.

                  Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

                  by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:45:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  By facts on the ground, I mean soldiers coming... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...out openly as gay, and serving proudly without shame, and in doing so, helping to turn the attitudes of this nation around. (Well, not really "aouund", given that 78% figure.)

                  While a few may just do that in the current context, for it to be widespread would require that they actually trust this Administration's promises.

                  The DOJ appeal makes that trust problematic, to say the least.

                  Do soldiers actually trust the current administration enough to come out of the closet, given the appeal?

                  Can you at least understand why they might not have such trust, given the reality of the appeal?

                  I mean, seriously, can this Adminizstration be trusted not to discriminate against them simply for being gay?

                  What has this Administration done to deserve such trust?

                  Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

                  by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  No, (0+ / 0-)

              I think they should keep their powder dry and let this either run all the way to SCOTUS or the Defense Bill is signed.

          •  I think they have to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            second gen, Bonsai66, FiredUpInCA

            because the appeals court will ask for a stay until they have a chance to hear the matter fully.

            •  That's probably true... (0+ / 0-)

              since the military would probably at least be able to make a prima facie case of 'uncertainty' around establishing a consistent policy of implementation during the appeals process.

              It would be better if the requested stay had a specific time period to it, in order for the military to get their ducks in a row, so to speak.

              "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

              by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:19:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The stay might be conditioned on keeping the (0+ / 0-)

              suspension going, since it is now a fact on the ground.

        •  When did we stop allowing the overturning (0+ / 0-)

          of Legislation by later Congresses?

          When did we make a law that once an Executive Order is passed, no law may be passed adressing the same issue?

          Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

          by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:43:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's a risk to everything (7+ / 0-)

        The Bush admin undid protections for federal  GLBT employees. Let's see what happens when we go three years or 7 years and GLBT people have served without incident. Throw the numbers in their faces that they are wasting millions of dollars. Show how our country is at risk with one mass firing of hundred or thousands.

        Like desegregating the military. I'm guessing another president could have reversed that too. But no one dared to.

        Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

        by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um can you imagine (5+ / 0-)

        what would have happened if the Civil Rights Act or desegregation of the military didn't happen when they did out of fear someone down the line might reverse it? They might still not be passed today. Yes, we should do all we can to secure this in every way possible. In the courts etc. but before then we have to stop the discrimination and let these people serve our country

        Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

        by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The segregation of the Armed Forces... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen, ETF, Onomastic, FiredUpInCA

          was a slightly different scenario, since it was not the law of the land at the time.

          It was military policy.

          "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

          by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:21:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The law of the land (4+ / 0-)

            has been deemed unconstitutional. It has been deemed impractical and a threat to our security. So the "law of the land" shit doesn't fly, it's not constitutional.

            Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

            by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understand your reaction... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen, FiredUpInCA

              but please remember that your comment above is not a valid legal argument.

              The law of the land has been deemed unconstitutional.

              This is the ruling of a Federal judge, not a circuit court of appeals or the SCOTUS.  In order for the law of the land to be deemed unconstitutional, and have it apply to the entire country, a judgment will need to be rendered by the SCOTUS.

              What if the judge in Florida rules that the Health care insurance mandate is unconstitutional?  Does that invalidate the law for the entire country?

              Again, I understand you reaction and feel very much the same way, but that does not obviate the need to follow well understood legal principles.

              "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

              by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My argument is merely (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lysias

                that the DOJ doesn't need to fight for this. Let some bigot right-wing group take it to the SCOTUS. I simply don't believe the idea that the DOJ must defend a law that seems unconstitutional.
                Should we take it to SC? Yes. But we should also have other measures, including stop loss.

                Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

                by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:08:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, you've cycled back to... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  second gen, FiredUpInCA

                  the larger argument, and away from the specific points that we were discussing.

                  I've already addressed the larger argument in my original post and subsequent comments, and don't feel the need to rehash it again.

                  Cheers!

                  "I think I ate your chocolate squirrel." - Brick Tamland

                  by Bonsai66 on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:12:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Especially when considered in conjunction with (0+ / 0-)

                the Detroit opinion also already in going the other way.

              •  Arguing that we should defend constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                laws doesn't mean one must also agree that we should defend unconstitutional laws.

                The DoJ is not a Legal Aide attorney, required to take all clients assigned without regard to their factual guilt or innocence.

                Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

                by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:51:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The Emancipation Proclimation was an (0+ / 0-)

          Executive Order.

          Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

          by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:48:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So while we're all sitting around... (6+ / 0-)

        ...waiting for it to be done "right," how many more thousands of gay soldiers will Obama kick out of the military to go with the thousand he's already kicked out?

  •  This diary is factually incorrect. (25+ / 0-)

    I have also heard the argument that Obama could use "Stop Loss" to prevent the seperation required by DADT?  That is incorrect, because Stop Loss is not a Law, it's a policy that was implemented by the Military and for which Congress was only briefed about.  The only thing Congress has done with Stop Loss is to extend pay for it, but Congress didn't put it in place.

    The statute which enacted DADT contains a specific provision giving the president authority to suspend discharges under its provisions if he deems such suspension to be in the interest of military necessity. Obama has the clear authority and refuses to use it.

    •  Like it or not.... (7+ / 0-)

      ...Obama's strategy is to try and get buy-in from within the military for a real change.  And before folks get cynical about that - he has had some major successes in that area with a growing chorus of military voices arguing against DADT.

      Invoking Presidential suspension would seem to work against this approach, and might be counter-productive in the long run.  The most important goal here is to kill DADT dead with no hope of renewal.    

    •  Obama taught Constitutional Law (7+ / 0-)

      When I listened to Obama's video in this diary it sounded like he knew what he was talking about.  He taught Constitutional Law and I would think he knows what he is talking about.  He was a Senator and I would think he knows what Congress can and can't do.

      He said clearly in the clip above that he wants it repealed and it will happen while he is president.

      This is what he has been saying all along.  

      I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

      by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:06:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was in the past. (7+ / 0-)

        He is now a politician trying to save his hide.

        •  I really don't think so. He's the only (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ETF, Onomastic, FiredUpInCA

          one that knows his own motives, but I've watched biographies about him, read his books and books about him and he seems to be a very consistent person.  And one thing that was also consistent is that people didn't always understand him or his motives.  I can't see that he could have changed as a person because he became president.  Clinton and others have talked about the realities of dealing with situations and how they had to make their decisions so I think that can happen.

          I know you are angry and frustrated as well as a lot of other people here.

          You gave your opinion about the law and what he could or couldn't do.  There was no link, no proof.  It just looks like your opinion.  I'm not a lawyer and I don't watch any TV news because I don't care about opinions.  I do know Obama knows the Constitution, law and congress so I'm going to trust him when he says he wants DADT repealed.  I know you don't, but in this case I really do trust him.

          And we will see what happens.  For now we need to get the Dem majorities in House and Senate so laws we want can be passed.

          I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

          by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:31:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The constitutional lawyer (8+ / 0-)

            who loves state secrets, the ability to assassinate American citizens without due process and a weak FISA.  And that's for starters.  Yes, I realize that none of those subjects are the subjects of this diary, but spare the constitutional lawyer stuff.

            •  He is a lawyer who taught Constitutional law. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catzmaw, mali muso, FiredUpInCA

              Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, that's a fact, not an opinion.

              I'll tell you something, Aunt Martha.  I don't like the things going on that you mentioned either, but I consider DKos a community.  When folks like you jump in and attack something I said because you don't like it, it just makes me want to support President Obama more.  It's that emotional argument that Fox and the GOP makes instead of a rational argument. And it's an attack because I said something you didn't like, instead of answering what I said. It's RedState behavior.   I fought the good fight against the Vietnam war and Nixon and all that crap I didn't like before.

              I'm not fighting "against" anymore. I'm a Democrat and am working to make things better. And there is plenty President Obama is doing that is positive.  That's where I'm going to put my energy.

              I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

              by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:58:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Welcome to my world (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ParkRanger, FiredUpInCA

                After posting the text of the DADT statute and regs on another diary my worthy opponents STILL insisted I didn't know what I was talking about even though the text supported my position 100%.  Instead, they suggested that I had evil motives and must hate gay people.

                This is the attitude Obama is dealing with from a lot of people who want the change to occur this instant and think it's valid to attack him for not making it happen sooner.  It's far easier to call names and accuse him of insincerity or deceit than it is to admit that politics and change are actually very messy and often lengthy processes.  Much better to stamp one's foot and pout than to give the man the support he needs to get it done.  

                •  Hate is such a strong word. (0+ / 0-)

                  Instead, they suggested that I had evil motives and must hate gay people.

                  "Don't give a shit about" was the conclusion I remember people generally comming to the last time you put some serious effort in trying to argue it was a great idea to keep kicking people out of the military for a while longer.

                  Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

                  by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:00:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your language is murky, but are you saying (0+ / 0-)

                    I was arguing that it was "a great idea to keep kicking people out of the military for a while longer?"  That seems to be what you're saying, and if you are, then I call you the lying sack of shit that you are and ask you to please find a comment from me where I say any such thing.

                    You WON'T find it because I DIDN'T write it and I really resent your attempts to smear me with such a lie.  

                    You're nothing but a goddamned LIAR.

                    •  That's exactly what you continue to argue. (0+ / 0-)

                      That the policy should continue to be enforced, in spite of the Presidents ability to suspend it.

                      Now, you've argued in favor of seeking an injunction staying a Court order, so that it can be enforced pending appeal.

                      Your stance is clear.  You're for more witch hunts, and you're for more discharges.

                      Make whatever excuses you like, and assert whatever authority you like, this is the position you've picked.

                      Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

                      by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:22:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  This is very funny. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Orange County Liberal, JesseCW

                I guess you consider disagreement to be an attack.  Yawn.

                I have to log off, but I look forward upon my return to reading about how I've just attacked you again.

                •  No, not attack, but again, there is nothing (0+ / 0-)

                  in your comment that is helpful.  No discussion of the topic.  No working toward a solution.

                  My comments in this diary was about DADT, not the other topics you mentioned. And regarding, DADT, I do believe Obama is sincere, that he knows the law, and that he wants what he says -- for it to become the law of the land.

                  I don't see any reason for a Democrats to pick on each other because they have a different opinion.  Discuss a topic?  Yes! I've seen some fascinating discussions where people might be quite passionate, but they are sharing their perspectives and opinions. I've learned a lot.

                  I also see a lot of comments like yours. You know quite well that you gave an emotional response designed to belittle me as if what I said to you was just beneath answering because it's so boring:

                  I guess you consider disagreement to be an attack.  Yawn

                  Your comment is emotional, not rational and I assure you I don't feel belittled at all.  I just feel more determined to work for what I believe in and I feel more empathy for President Obama.

                  There's way, way too much at stake in our country to get fights.

                  I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

                  by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 02:36:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm glad to see that you've backed off this: (0+ / 0-)

                    it's an attack because I said something you didn't like, instead of answering what I said.

                    But then again, maybe you haven't:

                    I don't see any reason for a Democrats to pick on each other because they have a different opinion.

                    As for the rest of what you wrote here, it's mind reading behavior:

                    You know quite well that you gave an emotional response designed to belittle me as if what I said to you was just beneath answering because it's so boring

                    Your comment is emotional, not rational

                    And you're really not good at it.

                    •  No, I didn't back off. I was replying to your (0+ / 0-)

                      second comment about the yawn.

                      We still aren't talking about any issues and this isn't getting anywhere. As humans, we all interpret each other's behavior and words. I know what the psychological term mind reading means. You can call it mind reading if you want, but your last sentence was another attempt at a cut just like the yawn was.
                       
                      If you want to consider yourself a winner in this exchange, then please be my guest.

                      Go in peace.

                      I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination. ~Jimmy Dean

                      by ParkRanger on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, and by the way, (0+ / 0-)

                John Yoo teaches constitutional law too.  Am I saying that Obama=Yoo?  No.  But I am saying that teaching con law in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.

        •  So he's not interested in any of that Con Law (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          stuff anymore?  Is that your theory?  I'm a lawyer and I've studied a lot of constitutional law and I can see exactly why he's doing what he's doing.  This issue isn't occurring in a vacuum and it cannot be fixed by executive fiat for a variety of reasons which have been spelled out elsewhere.

          This impatience reminds me of every client who ever had a valid cause and got annoyed because I couldn't resolve their cases fast enough due to what they regard as legal "mumbo-jumbo".  

      •  not quite (0+ / 0-)

        "He said clearly in the clip above that he wants it repealed and it will happen while he is president.

        This is what he has been saying all along.  "

        Actually, no, you missed the part where he said it would happen earlier.

    •  It's not a "military necessity" to end DADT. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vyan, FiredUpInCA

      Issuing a blanket decision to end enforcemnt of DADT would required, under your theory, a finding that every single gay servicemen, and every potential serviceman who is gay, is of "military necessity".  Nobody could possibly pretend that's the truth.  At least some gay servicemen are going to be expendable to the military.  

      The reason to end DADT is because it's discriminatory against gays.  Not because gays are supersoldiers.  Until, of course, five minutes ago.    

      Once again, sure, Obama could do it, if he wanted to lie to everyone's faces in order to get around a law he doesn't like, in such a brazen way that everyone knows it.  You can argue that Obama has the "clear authority" to premise his decisions on blatent lies, but arguing that he should is too republican for my taste.  It's twice as brazen and half as clever that anything bush tried.

      Some feel more comfortable with the certainty that comes from losing power and letting republicans stab them in the front. It's a failure of nerve.

      by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:43:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nobody is saying that gays are "supersoldiers" (7+ / 0-)

        just that millions of dollars are spent per soldier (gay or straight, mind you) on food, shelter and training. I would deem it a "military necessity" to stop discharging gay soldiers because who the fuck wants to waste those hundreds of training hours? Or all that money?

        Simply end the enforcement of the law (and, yes, Obama can do that given the situation above) and the money stops going down the toilet.

        You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

        by rexymeteorite on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:48:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'ts not a military necessity. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          NOt a blanket end to all discharges under DADT,which would only make sense if gays were supersoldiers and each individually indispensable.  

          Is it expensive?  Sure.  But the money isn't a military necessity, either.  You're confusing military necessity with a good law, and for Obama to say what you just said would make it clear: he's not asserting a military necessity, he's asserting a budget deficit.  

          And that's the essential difference: people here think that the fact the law is awful justifies slinging it.  And that's a point winner on daily kos.  But when a president does it, in the real world, it's a little different.  I thought we learned that during Bush.

          Some feel more comfortable with the certainty that comes from losing power and letting republicans stab them in the front. It's a failure of nerve.

          by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:00:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Presidents certify all kinds of bullshit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Orange County Liberal

        all the time.  I mean seriously, have all those Central and South American countries that every president since Carter has regularly certified are good partners in the "War on Drugs (tm)" really been so?  I could rattle off dozens of similar examples.

        All the law says is that the president "determines" they are essential - it doesn't say how he/she is to determine this (and indeed such a requirement would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his CiC powers).

        Tropical weather info and discussion at Storm2k.org

        by jrooth on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:57:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, we love the Unitary Executive now. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA

          it doesn't say how he/she is to determine this (and indeed such a requirement would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his CiC powers).

          How do people not simply cringe when they cite C in C powers to ignore statutes?  Am I the only one who read the dozens of diaries about how awful John Yoo's legal theories were?  So awful he should be  prosecuted or disbarred or fired?

          But now, it's our turn and a law we don't like.  

          William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
          Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
          William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
          Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

          Some feel more comfortable with the certainty that comes from losing power and letting republicans stab them in the front. It's a failure of nerve.

          by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:05:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Judiciary branch declared DADT... (5+ / 0-)

            ...unconstitutional.  Funny, I didn't realize that the Judiciary branch was part of the Executive branch now.

            •  One judge did. Not the "branch". (2+ / 0-)

              And when Obama appealed so that, in fact, someone could say with a straight face what the judicial branch thinks, his action was met with howls of dismay.  Because you don't want to know what the judicial branch thinks..you want the result regardless of what it thinks.

              Am I wrong?  

              Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

              by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:38:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How does this judge... (4+ / 0-)

                ...not count as the judicial branch?  It looks like the argument is that this judge doesn't count now because the Obama administration is appealing and you're desperate to justify how they can say they're against the thing that the judge ruled unconstitutional yet appeal that ruling to argue that it is constitutional.

                •  Because he isn't, it doesn't. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  factPlusContextAlmostTruth

                  It looks like the argument is that this judge doesn't count now

                  Doesn't count, for precedent, because it's not the judicial branch.  It's one judge out of literally thousands.

                  But dry legalisms aside, is this really where you want to go?  We already saw Bush act to pick friendly courts in order to get the result he wanted.  Remember Jose Padilla?  He ended up in a brig in Charleston, which means his case would end up in the conservative fourth circuit court of appeals.

                  So basically, a president finds one judge, announces that one judge to be the judicial branch, refuses to appeal, and that's the law?  Really?  Done and done?

                  It isn't, since the next president simply brings it up again, nor would we want it to be.  We would be against any such result driven treatment of the law, until we found a result that made acting like Bush worth it.  Except it's not acting like Bush.  Bush was half as brazen and twice as clever in his end arounds the law.  He had the sense to HIDE most of it.

                  Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

                  by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Ending prosecution of medical marijuana (0+ / 0-)

            dispenseries in states where they are legal under local law - Great!!!

            Ending prosecution of Gays and Lesbians for being Gays and lesbians - TYRANNY!!!!!

            Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

            by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:02:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your mising ignorance into your hypocrisy. (0+ / 0-)

              LOS ANGELES — The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.

              http://www.nytimes.com/...

              It's hilarious that the purity preeners who pretended to be so aghast at presidential power two minutes ago change their opinions.  

              And will change back, too.  That's what happens when "principles" are changed to meet the fashions of the day.  Poltics aren't Silly Bands.

              Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

              by Inland on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:42:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's different (0+ / 0-)

      from using "Stop Loss" to make this decision, and still doesn't address the fact that future President could simply make a different determination.

    •  Stop-loss is as much law as DADT is. (7+ / 0-)

      TITLE 10 - Subtitle E - PART II - Chapter 1209 - § 12305 of the United States Code

      § 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

      (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

      (b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
      (1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
      (2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.

      (c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

      The bold emphasis is mine, and it is that part of the LAW that is commonly referred to as stop-loss.  President Obama could have kept the 1000 soldiers he has kicked out of the military from being kicked out.  The LAW allows him to do so.  It is not a policy; it is LAW.

    •  Stop Loss 10 USC Sec, 12305(a). (0+ / 0-)
  •  OK, I'm imagining it. (7+ / 0-)

    Imagine three years down the road if someone is challenging Health Care, over the individual mandate or minimum coverage requirements and we have a Republican President, and they find one Federal District Judge who finds that it's unconstitutional.

    I'm having a little difficulty imagining how breathing new life into DADT after it has been killed has any effect whatsoever on this scenario.

    Can somebody please help me out?

    Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

    by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:53:31 AM PDT

  •  Horse puckey (15+ / 0-)

    I've heard this argument trotted out before: It's a matter of law! A law that has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Precedent has been showed here many times, including under Clinton, the DOJ does not have to defend laws it holds unconstitutional. Then of course the fact that the DOJ is duty-bound to prosecute war crimes but there, somehow, they can find a way around that.
    Obama has done exactly ZERO so far to advance this cause. He keeps telling congress to go it. Senate could not get the votes, so he says congress has to do it again when we have less votes. This was a golden opportunity, do not appeal an unconstitutional law.
    At very least, he can put a moratorium on further firings until this is worked out, you know, where the whole division says they don't care X and Y are gay, the commander doesn't care - that these people could be kept from being kicked out. But no, he can't that.

    I argue he's not doing the right thing, he's doing NOTHING - except make promises.

    Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

    by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 09:55:23 AM PDT

  •  But this is a red herring, too. (14+ / 0-)

    If we really have to wait for Congress...doesn't that mean that, if Congress really repeals it (which I don't anticipate, as Rs don't want to and won't, as a result)...what's to prevent a future Congress from re-enacting it? Not a damned thing.

    On Sara Palin: "That woman...is an Idiot." -- Keith Olbermann

    by allergywoman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:14:50 AM PDT

  •  What Obama can do. Not appeal. (16+ / 0-)

    Simple.

    Done.

    Maybe the Senate will do the right thing and repeal DADT. So far it doesn't appear that they will do so.

    Thus Obama has an option. Not to appeal.

    "Trying to hold back the revision of history is always a good thing." -- Peter Christopherson

    by jethrock on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:15:18 AM PDT

  •  Excellent points, Vyan, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catzmaw, ETF, FiredUpInCA

    and somehow I'm not even remotely surprised to discover that those who don't want to hear are unable to hear.

    It's a Twitter world now - I want what I want when I want it, and no concerns about the future will ever sway me from instant gratification.  Sometimes I wish he'd just do all those things people insist on, and let the outraged figure out how to clean up the resultant mess.  Unfortunately most grown-ups know that's a foolish revenge.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:21:01 AM PDT

    •  I hear vyan (10+ / 0-)

      I just don't buy his defense of the Administration. There are things that can be done to stop the effects of DADT before a fix is legislated. No amount of "but what if republicans....." will change that fact.

      You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

      by rexymeteorite on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:24:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please explain (7+ / 0-)

      Sometimes I wish he'd just do all those things people insist on, and let the outraged figure out how to clean up the resultant mess.

      What "mess" would be created by not appealing the decision?

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:24:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the hell are you talking about? (9+ / 0-)

      Mess? Virtually all of our allies, including Israel, allow gays in the military. There have been virtually no problems. 78% of the public is for it. Once again, Obama is cowering to the military and letting politics be shaped by that 22% nutty fringe. Does that sound like leadership?

      Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

      by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:30:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Most insightful there, OCD, but then again, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orange County Liberal, ruscle

      that is to be expected since you clearly speak for yourself and only for yourself.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

      by enhydra lutris on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:53:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I want to hear Part II of the arguements. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orange County Liberal, m00finsan

      I've asked for Part II of a couple of the common arguements mentioned in the diary above.

      and somehow I'm not even remotely surprised to discover that those who don't want to hear are unable to hear.

      So far, folks have only been willing to present Part I.

      If we are "unable to hear" the complete arguements, with both Part I and Part II, how can we be expected to evaluate them?

      Less fearmongering, more hopemongering

      by banach tarski paradox on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:02:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a law, passed by Congress. (0+ / 0-)

        It has to be repealed by Congress.  Some possible ramifications of things like an executive order ending discharges would start with the obvious problem of chicken-shit members of Congress using that as an excuse to take no action.   It's really simple for me.  The law is abhorrent, the consequences to gay service members are abhorrent, and the fact that Congress takes no action is abhorrent.  

        The "Bully Pulpit" argument is nonsense in reference to a Democratic president.  There is no bully pulpit when the media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.  

        There is no point in grieving about the reality that Democrats don't act like Republicans, we don't move in lockstep or (for the most part) parrot this morning's Murdoch Talking Points memo with such fervor and fidelity.  We're Dems, sometimes it's a pain in the ass, it beats the hell out of the alternative.

        The President is the President of the entire country, he is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Progressive movement.  That annoys me sometimes but I'm also deeply pleased that there's someone in the White House who takes that seriously, who realizes that not everyone sees things the same way or believes the same things and that those who disagree with him, or you, or me, are still citizens and still have a right to be considered.

        We didn't respond well to having shit crammed down our throats.  Is is reasonable to expect your fellow citizens to respond any differently?  This is what makes Democracy hard - it's really quite possible that some of the things I think are simply common sense and common decency could have unpleasant consequences.  I want a president who seems aware of that reality.  Our problems are too serious to turn over to intellectual lightweights again.

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 05:25:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Yawn. (12+ / 0-)

    So stop beating him up over it, he's doing the right thing.  It may not be pretty right now, but we'll get to the goal we all want. Soon.

    You mean the continued dismissal of gay servicemen & women? Because that's apparently the goal the President wants, since he refuses to use stop loss, and it's what I now assume the goal is of anyone who supports his positions on this.

    Just like the Pentagon, Obama is just running out the clock on this icky issue involving those icky gay people he doesn't like. We get it. We don't understand why he's demoralizing the base this close to the election, but that's what he'd decided to do. Whatever.

    •  But they still want our money and votes (6+ / 0-)

      Hell, HRC had a high-dollar fund raiser last week and Valerie Jarrett spoke of "lifestyle choices" - they could not even get it right at an event for affluent GLBT people.

      I paraphrase Kanye: Obama does not care about gay people.

      Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

      by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:32:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As I said in the diary.. (0+ / 0-)

      Stop Loss is not an option, it's a policy and can't be used to violate the law. They have to change the law.

      •  You are wrong. (5+ / 0-)

        Stop-loss is not policy.  It is law.

        TITLE 10 - Subtitle E - PART II - Chapter 1209 -  § 12305

        § 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

        (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

        (b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
        (1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
        (2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.

        (c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

        Once again, the bold emphasis is mine.  This is stop-loss.  This is law, not policy.

      •  Why have you not updated despite being (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth

        given clear links showing your basic premise to be wrong?

        Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

        by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:12:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  He has not signed many Executive orders (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, Orange County Liberal

    seems he gets his advice from the republicans

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    by one pissed off democrat on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

  •  People want a little Unitary Executive now. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catzmaw, ETF, BrowniesAreGood, FiredUpInCA

    Not Dumbledore, but Mussolini:

    The point here is that when Congress passes a Law, the President can't just Ignore It and do what he wants to do anyway.

    That's precisely the suggestion that comes up again and again, usually explicitly, sometimes implicitly buried under some legal theories that John Yoo actually did write.

    Some feel more comfortable with the certainty that comes from losing power and letting republicans stab them in the front. It's a failure of nerve.

    by Inland on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:29:53 AM PDT

  •  Here's the problem with "the right way." (11+ / 0-)

    We can argue all day long about what the exactly and precisely the rightest of the right way to end DADT would be.  

    MEANWHILE -- people are being hurt

    1. Good men and women are being discharged
    1. Good men and women are living under the threat of being found out
    1. Military readiness is weakened and made more expensive (to replace those needlessly discharged)
    1. Our country is done the disservice of having institutionalized bigotry argued FOR in a court of law by our President's Attorney General.  
    1. Children watching this (gay and lesbian children who are struggling with their sexuality and considering suicide) are being shown that even President Obama thinks they are second class citizens.  

    So it comes down to this:  Whatever the right way you imagine DADT will or should end -- we MUST have the Stoploss put in place by Obama IMMEDIATELY. And he has every reason to do so.   Doing anything less and Obama deserves the continued questioning of his "principles" on DADT.  

    Hurting people while Obama takes his time to do this the "right way" is Bull-fucking-Shit!  Screwing people over when there is an obvious and justified way not to belies the idea that Obama, Holder and the rest of the government give half a crap about Gays and Lesbians.  

    •  I started questioning Obama's (13+ / 0-)

      "principles" on GLBT issues when he had McClurkin and Rick Warren speak at his events. It has gone down hill from there - with a few exceptions.

      Oh, and that great Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill? DOJ is not enforcing hate crimes against gay people. Guess they aren't duty-bound there.

      Change takes time, so do donations. Nada until DADT is really, fully repealed.

      by gladkov on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:35:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Stop Loss doesn't work legally. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA
      •  It works temporarily (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater, JesseCW

        until the legal part can be worked out.  

        And to not issue a stop loss in the face of so many men, women and families being hurt by this policy is morally bankrupt.  

        So stop arguing against using an available legal tool that would alleviate some of the suffering until the correction can be made.    

        Arguing against the use of the Stop Loss is creepy and disingenuous.  

      •  You can repeat this all you want. (5+ / 0-)

        Doesn't make it true.

        Title 10 § 12305:

        § 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation
        How Current is This?
        (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.
        (b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
        (1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
        (2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.
        (c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

        (emphasis mine)

        The president simply needs to make a determination.  Nowhere does it say what criteria the president must use to make such a determination.  There is no requirement for any sort of factual basis.  And one could well argue that attempting to dictate to the president how he should determine what soldiers are essential would intrude upon his constitutional CiC power.

        Tropical weather info and discussion at Storm2k.org

        by jrooth on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:05:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for providing that... (0+ / 0-)

          but it looks a lot like what other people in the thread have mentioned.   It's written based on an individual member by member determination as to whether that individual is essential, not a blanket determination based on the policy itself.  This could be invoked, but would only hold on individual basis - and only until another determination by another President (or I would assume the SecDef in his stead) sees fit to reverse it.  Not really a solution.

          •  You are moving the goalposts. (0+ / 0-)

            You repeatedly claimed the "stop loss is not an option."  This is false.

            As for your new argument about future presidents revoking any stop loss order - that would be moot after the 60 day appeal period on the ruling has expired.  At that point, the District Court injunction has the force of law.

            Tropical weather info and discussion at Storm2k.org

            by jrooth on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:44:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's true (0+ / 0-)

              right now the courts have the ball, but the injunction has been stayed by the 9th circuit - which isn't a big surprise.

              I'm still not comfortable with this option, it seems viable legally since, as I now understand it, Congress basically gave the President the authority to abrogate any other opposing law - but I don't see what could stop a future President from simply making the opposite determination.  My bottom line point is that Congress should be the ones to fix this and Obama is primarily pursuing that course.  The courts might also affirm a permanent injunction via SCOTUS and that would be fine too, but it won't be lasting and become Stare Decisis if it doesn't get pushed to SCOTUS, which means they need to appeal even if their ultimate goal is to lose.  I think Obama is ultimately pursuing the best coarse for the long term, even if in the short term it may be very frustrating and difficult.

              Vyan

      •  Considering that stop-loss is law... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, emsprater, JesseCW, m00finsan

        ...please explain how it does not work legally.

        •  Is Stop-Loss Law? (0+ / 0-)

          I looked, didn't find it.  What I found was what I linked in the diary.  In 2004 the Military Implemented a Stop-Loss policy and informed congress about it.

          The latest stop-loss orders will be announced after Congress is briefed and affected Army units are informed, defense officials said. The new orders are an expansion of similar orders imposed Nov. 13 on more than 110,000 active duty soldiers whose units are preparing to go to Iraq and Afghanistan between now and May. They represent the first major changing of the guard in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1.

          As far as I can tell Congress didn't pass this as law, it's something the Military has flexibility to implement as they see fit - but again not, in violation of laws that have been passed by Congress such as DADT.

          Vyan

  •  Distrust (6+ / 0-)

    Now the current defense authorization bill in front of the Senate also ends this policy - and there is only one bill - so either we repeal DADT and fund our military this year or we don't.  

    The policy is not over, not until either the Senate or the SCOTUS acts and right now the odds are good that both might in fact do so - but they haven't done it yet and other than cheerleading the Senate on the issue, Obama's hands are largely tied.

    I can, frustratingly, agree with the majority of the diary.  The above portion is where I part ways with the diarist.  I just don't have trust in the Democrats in the Senate.  Joe Biden assured us that they had the votes on Rachel Maddow when it was filibustered the last time.  Where is the proof that anything has changed?  Why should I believe the administration again when they've told me once that they had the votes and then they weren't there?

  •  Dumbledore is GAY!!! (9+ / 0-)

    Obviously Obama isn't Dumbledore,  Dumbledore was wise and gay.  

    Obama is a politician -- and on DADT he appears neither wise, nor gay, nor even the slightest bit gay friendly.  

    I wonder how many individuals and families will be hurt while Obama does this "his" way.  (By which I mean, not him actually doing it but rather passing the hot potato off to congress.)  

  •  The military has other weapons it can use in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    its ongoing war against GLBT persons serving in the military. Congress pretended to try to act on behalf of the GLBT service members while, in reality, giving the military brass ample time to determine and refine its strategies and plan of attack for doing just that. When the military feels sufficiently ready to attack under the UCMJ and has delayed as long as they think they can, Congress will pass a bill repealing DADT, but doing nothing else in support of the GLBT community.

    When that bill hits the President's desk, if Obama is still the President by then, he will sign it. With a great shout, all of the true believers will claim credit on his behalf for him doing it, "exactly as he said he would, so there, whiners". His actual contribution to its passage will be even less than his contribution to the Profit Based Medical Care and Health Insurance Reaffirmation Bill.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 10:46:57 AM PDT

  •  So happy to have company in my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    never ending battle to explain to some folks on this site that this isn't about Obama "hating" or "betraying" anyone but about the limitations on his authority to simply swoop in and change it by magical executive fiat, not to mention the disadvantages of using the magical executive fiat when what we really need is repeal of the law and enactment of a new law specifically forbidding discrimination against gays in the military. This, too, is a tall order because now we're talking about things like survivor benefits, health care benefits, and housing privileges, not to mention changes in the rules regulating conduct in the military.  

    So far I've been accused of being a McCain lover and hating gay people because I'm pointing out - as a lawyer - what the problems are with the Dumbledore option.  It seems telling people actual facts which they don't want to hear is likely to get one flamed.

    •  Please Stop with the Condescending (6+ / 0-)

      "I'm a lawyer so I understand what you don't" attitude.  

      Last lawyer that told me that was 180° wrong about his argument and found out a week later that he was blowing the case because he was wrong.   Luckily two non-lawyers corrected his mistake.  (That was just a few weeks ago by the way.)

      So spare us.

      If you are such a smart lawyer, then why don't you explain to all us feeble-minded laypersons in simple, dumbed down terms that our undeveloped minds can grasp how withholding instituting the Stop Loss while this is sorted out is the only legal option open to President Obama.  

      Otherwise, your attitude is just one more form of clapping harder that does nothing to help those being hurt by DADT... including the homophobic military, individuals and families.  

       

      •  I'm a lawyer, a graduate of Yale Law School (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater, JesseCW, ruscle

        in fact, and someone who has worked in the Office of General Counsel of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as a reserve naval officer, and I agree with you.  I see no reason why Obama couldn't issue a stop loss order.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:09:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  At least, you play one on Dailykos. (0+ / 0-)

      This is the internet, and there is no reason for anyone to believe your claim.

      Capitalism already ate itself. Now it's just shitting itself.

      by JesseCW on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:17:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary. You've expressed very clearly, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BrowniesAreGood, FiredUpInCA

    imo, the Prez's obligation defend the laws of the U.S. and how unhappy many of you were when W couldn't be bothered to do that.  

    The irony of seeing some progressive Americans wish Pres. Obama would be more like W is very painful.

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:21:12 AM PDT

  •  asfd (5+ / 0-)
    1. Stop Loss.  Should have done that on day 1 of his administration, and not a fucking thing Congress could do about it.
    1. Don't appeal, and the injunction has the force of law.

    Tropical weather info and discussion at Storm2k.org

    by jrooth on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:29:08 AM PDT

  •  some military law experts disagree (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.palmcenter.org/...

    SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released by the Palm Center and written by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.

    "There is no reason a Democrat has to be a weakling." - Alan Grayson

    by cassandraX on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:34:32 AM PDT

    •  Rec this 1,000 times (7+ / 0-)

      CassandraX -- Thank you so much for linking to that study.  You add value to DKos.  

      Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “...This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”

      and

      The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation."  Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

    •  Actual facts are ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacantlook, JesseCW, cassandraX, m00finsan

      so inconvenient to the apologia.

      If it's served to us and it's unpalatable but we smack our lips like it is the best thing we ever ate, how will the chef know to change the dish?

      by emsprater on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:29:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The legal arguments notwithstanding, (6+ / 0-)

    what frustrates me is the lack of urgency and political ineptitude that has characterized this and other LGBT issues.  Riding a wave of enthusiasm following the 2008 elections, I read literally hundreds of posts, articles, etc. from well-meaning individuals who's position seemed to be "oh shucks, we're entering an age of progressive dominance.  We've got plenty of time to get all of this done.  Just give them a little time."

    Well, in retrospect, fuck you.  The lesson here is, when you have control of the damn White House and both houses of the goddamn Congress, get on with it.

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:53:31 AM PDT

  •  It is much easier to (7+ / 0-)

    argue against points that nobody is making.

    This whole diary is built on a false premise: that someone, somewhere wants the President to end the gay ban unilaterally. Nobody is saying that. No one HAS been saying that. We KNOW that it is codified and it will take legislative action to repeal the part of the US Code that is DADT.

    You basically just MADE UP a fake argument and then argued (valid points) against it. Of COURSE he can't just ignore or get rid of the law himself. Duh.

    Don't be disingenuous on this. I'm so fucking sick of the heterosexist privilege on this blog that allows people to accuse GLBTs of wanting the President to be "more like Bush." Yeah, gays are the enemy and we don't care about democracy, right?

    Wrong.

    The President can stop discharges right now while this matter is pending before the courts. He's not going to stop them. He is going to keep kicking gays out of the military.

    The law itself allows the President to stop discharges, and even if it did not, he has legal authority to issue stop loss orders. This is not some plan to enact unitary executive powers. This is following the law, whether the President's biggest defenders like it or not. There are perfectly legal things he can do that he's not doing.

    THAT'S the complaint.

    •  Tipped and mostly agree but (4+ / 0-)

      I don't think it is really a heterosexist attack. Similar crap is being hurled at other constituencies as well that are unhappy with various aspects of this presidency.

      Having said that, you are absolutely right about what can be done. The counter argument that putting an immediate stop to discharges somehow means we can't ALSO pursue legislative changes is ridiculous and shows either a complete misunderstanding of the complaints (at best).

      "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security." -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:43:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reason I (4+ / 0-)

        took it as a heterosexist attack is I keep hearing from different quarters that the whiny gays just can't wait our turn and we want the President to be a dictator and break laws to help gay people because we're whining whiners who whine.

        It's very, very easy for straight people to stay emotionally distant on matters like this, whereas it's actually hurting gay people every day.

        To me it just sounded like the typical "just wait you impatient whiners" comments that we get all the time.

        But hell, I admit I could be wrong about the diarist's attitude on this. I just hate that it's so easy for a huge portion of this community to remain detached.

        And yeah, there are a lot of stupid arguments about why he can't end discharges. Like you said, people say he can't do both. Also, there's the one where people say that NOT issuing a stop loss order or any other legal means would make Republicans turn into nice people who follow all the laws and they'll never ever ever try to reinstate DADT once they're back in power if we just make a bunch of concessions like not allowing a stop loss order.

        That's my favorite one because it's so utterly stupid I can't believe anyone would say it on a progressive blog. Republicans are going to do whatever they're going to do, and keeping our powder dry won't cause Republicans (who hate gay people) to suddenly go, "Aww, Democrats, you guys are sweet. Since you didn't issue a stop loss order I guess we won't fight you on this or anything else anymore."

        Gag me.

        Just call me firepants.

        by indiemcemopants on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:53:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree about the attitude at all (4+ / 0-)

          To me it just sounded like the typical "just wait you impatient whiners" comments that we get all the time.

          Just saying it, or something similar, is being tossed towards ANY criticism of this administration. I just want a pony, or so I'm told. I fully sympathize with your feelings, and would probably agree with you if it wasn't being tossed out at so many different people around here.

          Now, that doesn't really matter one bit and is just nit picking. At the end of the day it is still insulting, condescending, and counter productive. You're right to be ticked off about it. And you're right to think your issues are getting short changed, because they are. I mean we're still fighting for DADT repeal after 2 years. I thought, even in a worst case scenario, that we'd be on to a DOMA fight by now. DADT seemed like easy low hanging fruit to me, but what do I know?

          whereas it's actually hurting gay people every day.

          And this is why I, as a straight guy, want to stand with you on this as strongly as I can. It is inexcusable that people are losing their careers because of bigotry. It is what, a thousand or so since inauguration? That's 2 careers or so a day ruined by bigotry and inaction.

          "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security." -Obama

          by heart of a quince on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:03:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I agree legislative action better route (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    The reason being that politically the tide is moving in the right direction.  Repeal of DADT is a political winner for Democrats.  More and more independents and even conservatives are coming down from opposition.

    It is also a more permanent solution.  If you do it by executive action, a hostile President can unwind it in a moment.

    It may be frustrating, messy and take longer.  But instituting the fundamental changes in federal law is the best approach.

  •  In interviews with J.K. Rowling, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, m00finsan

    she has described her vision of Dumbledore, as she was writing the Harry Potter series, as having been gay. Obama not being Dumbledore is a more accurate metraphor as regards DADT than you might have realized. Dumbledore might have actually been even more motivated to do what he humanly could have done in addition to what he could have done magically, instead of just using it as just another issue to placate the Democratic base during election seasons.

    No, a Dumbledore he is most certainly not. Just another politician practicing his own peculiar kind of magical sleight of hand.

    "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." Oscar Wilde

    by nippersdad on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site