[quoteAnd lastly, to Scylla: you’ve stated that, as far as gay rights go, Republicans have the dubious moral highground of being true to their beliefs in sabotaging attempts at gay equality, which at least makes them honest. My question is, why do you assume they are honest? If Democrats have discovered that they can profit by pretending to be friendly to gays, is it not equally likely that Republicans have discovered that they can profit by pretending to hate gays?[/quote]
Huh!
That is an interesting thought. Frankly hadn’t occurred to me. I guess I just figure bigotry is like leprosy, you wouldn’t want to fake it.
It’s a valid point. I think it’s easier to work with a sincere enemy (putting aside Miller’s objection for the moment,) than an insincere friend who may turn on you. You have the opportunity to reason with an enemy and possibly change their mind. It’s hard to have a dialogue with somebody who’s disingenuous though.
But, I concede it’s a matter of personal preference which poison you find least distasteful.
You calling it “bullshit” doesn’t make it so. But this has been explained over and over to you. I, knowing you, didn’t expect it to change your mind, but I did hope, when you heard it from Bricker, Richard Parker, the legal commentators provided in this thread, and from Obama himself, you’d at least recognize that it is a tenable, and actually desirable to some, position for the President to take.
Instead, you simply call it bullshit. C’est la vie.
If that were the extent of what you said, we wouldn’t have a problem. Pretty much everyone agreed on that.
But you didn’t say just that. You went on to say that he a) had a duty to and b) that he didn’t because he doesn’t want DADT to stop (oh, and that “liberals hate gays”) You also went on to make even more absurd comments I corrected you on, but replaying those would only make me smile and add nothing to the conversation at this point.
It was those comments, where you leave the realm of rational debate and pleasant disagreement, that got me involved.
I have. I’ve started giving it to you on page one, and I’ve repeated it over and over. Other posters, Obama himself, and linked legal commentators have done so too.
Why in heavens name would I think it would sink in now?
Question for the legalists: if the Obama DOJ had not appealed, would anyone else have “standing” to do so? Could we then have confidence that this was the “last word”, and could not be overturned?
I still haven’t seen anyone attempt to reconcile this idea that Obama is acting out of some sense of duty to fight for laws that have been overturned with his willingness to not enforce laws that are still on the books. While you’ve made a good argument for the principle itself, I think there’s still some distance to go before you’ve proved that this principle applies to Obama.
No one other than the party in the action can appeal. If the DOJ chose not to, that’s the end of it.
I think you’re conflating two issues here, Miller. I’m not aware of any laws Obama is refusing to enforce. But there are many areas of law in which the law enforcers are intentionally granted a great degree of discretion in terms of priorities and what to do under individual circumstances. Thus, a President (or prosecutor, or individual Sheriff) may place greater or less emphasis on, say, rounding up illegal immigrants – and they may do so without violating any duty to enforce the law.
The difference between prioritizing drug dealers over drug users (discretionary), and choosing not to appeal a district court ruling striking down a law (not discretionary), is the difference between managing a war (discretionary) and declaring it (not discretionary), or having an income tax (not discretionary) and choosing who to audit (discretionary). Or, more relevantly, the difference between having DADT (not discretionary) and placing authority for its use in the hands of five civilians instead of low-level military commanders (discretionary).
Because not every law is the same. It’s not an all or nothing proposition, where he must appeal/enforce every law or appeal/enforce none of the laws. Obama, like every President before him, has the discretion to treat some laws differently than others.
In this case, with the ruling in the LCR being only a district level ruling with no appeal and based on the Witt case, which has not been appealled, and the fact there are other rulings, by other district/appellate courts, that actually uphold DADT, it simply isn’t as clear cut as other cases may be.
Now I’m not sure what laws Obama has refused to enforce or said he hypothetically might, so I can’t compare them to appealling DADT. But I do know that he didn’t refuse to enforce DADT when he took office, so I’m thinking he didn’t think it was blatantly unconstitutional.
The problem is that this issue isn’t black and white. It’s not he hates gays vs. he must enforce/appeal everything. Like a majority of things in this world, it’s not easy.
If you go and look over the original arguments, it was stated pretty strongly to me that Obama was basically compelled by the system of check and balances to challenge the decision else all of a democracy would collapse.
From Bricker, post 73:
“Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he’s acting correctly.”
in post 325
“The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it’s his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there’s no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook.”
You and Richard seemed to agree with this interpetation. But its not true.
Now, I agree that Obama has taken a tenable position… politically, and if you wish DADT to stay in place.
If by “simply” you mean I provided cites than yes.
Whoa! Where did I say that? I reread the whole thread looking for me saying that Obama had a duty to do… (something, it’s not clear what you are referring to.) My argument has always been that it’s his decision. His duty is to the Constitution, not laws.
It’s hard for to me imagine how you bragging about how great your nonspecific uncited arguments in the past were is furthering the conversation.
In fact, seeing as I’ve given you a set of givens in my previous and a series of interpretations and invited you to challenge them, and instead of doing so you are just bragging about how great your arguments were in the thread, I’m not really seeing how you are furthering anything but a masturbatory fantasy. Was it good for you?
Seriously. Stop whacking off. I’m sure you were brilliant on page 1. This is page 9.
I don’t know. Maybe because what you are saying has not been consistent. You’ve endorsed Bricker’s position that he had to challenge the decision, but you’ve also said he had a choice. You have said that it’s a tenable position. You have also said it’s a mistake.
I have just reread and you have done all those things. I don’t think your arguments are as good as you fantasize.
You’ve been arguing, but it’s not exactly clear what you are arguing. In an attempt to determine what it is you are arguing, I restated my assesment of the issue, and some possible interpretations for Obama’s actions including the one I favor. I invited you to challenge my givens, or argue with my interpretations.
And… I did it nicely.
You ignored the bulk of the content and instead started bitching, and bragging, and telling me how smart you were earlier in the thread.
Read the cite I provided from the Justice Department and the cite I provided from Newsweek that had constitutional scholars speak on the issue, and which cited precedent from cases in the past where laws were overturned and unchallenged by Presidents.
It is entirely likely that the Republicans well end up with more power after the coming elections. So what? They’d already been effectively blocking DADT repeal without any extra votes. But their public statements for their reasoning has fallen along two general lines: that it is disruptive in a time of war, and the soldiers don’t want it.
Obama has finessed both lines of conflict. The survey I referenced before shows that the rank and file of service personnel have no problem with gay service members. And Obama offered the brass hats the opportunity to explore and prepare, they accepted, and now they are on board.
So the Pubbies only real plausible lines of argument are dismantled. Now, I don’t really think for a minute that they believed any of that, but it was a plausible line until the were dismantled, now they are road kill.
The public is behind repealing DADT. The soldiers are on board, and the ranking officers. The only rationales remotely feasible that the Pubbies can use are gone. About all they have left is to stand baldly on religious or sexual bigotry. And, on that basis, vote against Our Heroes. denying them badly needed support and combat assistance.
Obama apparently thinks they will cave. I think he’s probably right.
Plan B: The Pubbies go ahead any way, damn the torpedoes, full speed backward. Public backlash will be strong, unless they have managed to make Our Heroes less than sympathetic. The brass are on board, as well as the rank and file, and the Pubbies stink to high heaven, everybody hates their guts, save for the shriveling base of fanatics
So then he unleashes the power of the C in C, executive order, stop loss. Now, of course, the Pubbies can overturn that in the Congress, or they can try. Which stretches the fight out longer, and they look worse and worse and worse. Maybe even the Dems filibuster, wrapped in red white and blue bunting and sobbing over Our Heroes. Even if they pass it, he can veto.
But all of these scenarios end with the Pubbie going against a stacked deck. More likely, they will seek a face-saving rationale, which has been offered. "Well, now that we know that the officers are behind this and our soldiers are behind this, of course we are in favor of it, our only objection was Obama cramming this down the throats…"etc. etc.
So, Obama thinks they will cave. I think he is right.
And, once again, that’s where we differ. You continue to ignore the legal basis for his position, as well as ascribing a motive that has no support.
How could I possibly think that you said he had a duty not to appeal this case when you said: “As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it. In fact, that is his duty” What a bizarre reading I must have made to conclude you thought he had a duty when you said “that is his duty”. Silly me.
But, at the very least, we have another point of agreement. Obama is not required to refuse to appeal the DADT case.
Are those mutually exclusive in your world? Someone with whom you disagree with cannot possibly have a tenable position?
That explains so much.
To you, it’s not. Unfortunately, that’s not my fault.
I guess the answer to my question "Why in heavens name would I think it would sink in now? " is “I really shouldn’t.”
You, as you are wont to do, gave 4 different bullshit interpretations that you made up, and ignored the ones that have been offered to you throughout the thread. Repeatedly. I didn’t feel like having to repeat myself yet again, to play your little game.
I ascribed to you deliberate obtuseness rather than rampant stupidity. Perhaps that is my error.
Here are the other interpretations that you ignored. You may recognize them, because they’ve been posted in this thread repeatedly.
"“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.”
Look familiar at all? Ringing any bells? They’ve only been offered to you 3 times now.
Would someone explicate the concept of “facial challenge”, or point to where it has been clarified? I’m hoping it means that persons of my preferred gender will be legally obligated to offer me a more positive response, despite being certifiably ugly. But I fear this is too optimistic, and may exceed the proper bounds of government regulation.
