“Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it.”
"Seems to me the President and any Federal judge could nullify any law they wanted.
Judge: This law’s unconstitutional.
President: Okay.
Done. Two-thirds of the goverment cancelling out the remaining third. I’m pretty sure the system wasn’t set up for that."
“Obama has come out against DADT, but he wants congress to get rid of it.”
“Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he’s acting correctly.”
“Another reason for the DoJ to appeal court decisions such as this one is to make sure that the issue goes all the way to the Supreme Court.”
“I think “don’t ask, don’t tell” is wrong. I think it doesn’t serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I’ve gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned – something that’s unprecedented.”
"I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year.
Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with – and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do – is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done."
“On the other hand, it would be highly unusual for the government to fail to appeal a district court decision striking down a federal statute. A failure to appeal this case will likely generate substantial criticism.”
“The Administration can wait until after the elections to decide whether or not to appeal. It can take the position now that government lawyers are reviewing options. The Administration can then see where things stand after the November elections.”
"olitics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires.
Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point."
“The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them.”
All from this thread or linked in this thread. Again, not a one included “he hates gays”. And none that included “He really doesn’t want to win” either.