# That was unexpected DADT ruled unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255 "2010-09-10T02:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/1 "2010-09-10T02:19:31Z")
I’d heard about this case a while back and never thought anything would come of it but apparently something has. Besides this one article I don’t have much info but figure I’d get the ball rolling. > **[Archive blogs](https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/)** > > Los Angeles Times blogs that were published between 2006 and 2013. To me this is an issue that should be settled already. A majority of Americans support the repeal and during the last presidential election both candidates endorsed a repeal. The House already took up a repeal and passed it. This should have been a simple issue for our useless senate to vote on and move through. But as usual it seems they couldn’t do their jobs and left the heavy lifting to the courts. I await reading the ruling, but feel the court shouldn’t be determining military policy and am curious to how such a ruling will be implemented. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/2 "2010-09-10T02:22:49Z")
It was ruled by Judge Virginia A. Phillips that the constitutional right of gays and lesbians were being violated. Makes perfect sense. Why did it take so long? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/3 "2010-09-10T02:30:09Z")
Looks like the Advocate was paying attention unlike other media outlets Their brief [story](http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/09/Judge_Rules_DADT_Unconstitutional/) along with the [ruling](http://www2.advocate.com/pdfs/dADTopinion.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/4 "2010-09-10T13:34:06Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I await reading the ruling, but feel the court shouldn’t be determining military policy … So are you saying that the military need not comply with the First Amendment? Because that seems to be part of the basis for the ruling - that DADT restricts the free speech of gays and lesbians concerning their sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/5 "2010-09-10T13:44:50Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I await reading the ruling, but feel the court shouldn’t be determining military policy and am curious to how such a ruling will be implemented. If the Constitution can override the government, then it sure as hell can override the military. Keep in mind, the former is a legitimate source of power in the country – the latter emphatically is not. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/6 "2010-09-10T13:57:53Z")
It should never have gone to the courts. While I personally am not a fan of dont ask dont tell, the better process would have been to let OSD get rid of it (at political direction, of course). I don’t see this as a constitutional issue, either 1st amendment or due process, which was the other argument they made…restrictions on speech happen all the time as a condition of employment. The Justice Dept seems like it just rolled over and mailed it in, in fact. I wonder if that was Obama’s strategy? Just put up a completely braindead case to let some California judge take the arrows in the back for the administration? This is how the [WaPo](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090907092.html?hpid=topnews) put it: > [@](#): > > (The Judge) criticized the government’s defense in her ruling, writing, “It again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act.” I mean, WTF? To me, it looks like Obama took the pussy way out by letting Holder take a dive instead of standing up for what he supposedly believed in. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/7 "2010-09-10T14:09:25Z")
It’s not the pussy way out if it works. And if it means those clowns in Congress can’t make political hay out of it, even better. Thank you, Log Cabin Republicans! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/8 "2010-09-10T14:24:04Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I await reading the ruling, but feel the court shouldn’t be determining military policy and am curious to how such a ruling will be implemented. It’s true that the court shouldn’t determine military policy, but at the same time, it has the responsibility to determine how the Constitution guarantees the rights of military members. > [@Northern piper](#): > > So are you saying that the military need not comply with the First Amendment? That’s true, actually. Military personnel can be disciplined or even discharged for criticizing the President, an act that is wholeheartedly protected by the First Amendment when done by civilians. At the same time, military members are not completely bereft of any constitutional protections. Just as caselaw has grown up to determine the extent of constitutional protections for civilians, so, too, has a body of caselaw developed for those in the military, attempting to strike a balance between the deference due military leaders and the basic guarantees the constitution should provide. I agree that the best case would be for Congress to repeal DADT. This opinion lays out a shocking series of stories of abuse, harassment, and lost talent that the military has created by DADT. But I also believe that the case is made for a constitutional violation, because the evidence produced directly refuted the claims that gay members hurt military readiness, cohesion, or any other aspect of the military’s prime mission. Particularly devastating: > [@](#): > > LCR also produced evidence demonstrating that Defendants routinely delayed the discharge of servicemembers suspected of violating the Act’s provisions until after they had completed their overseas deployments. In other words, if Defendants began an investigation of a servicemember suspected of violating the Act, the investigation would be suspended if the subject received deployment orders; not until he or she returned from combat – assuming this occurred, of course – would the investigation be completed and the servicemember discharged if found to have violated the Act. Thus, Defendants deployed servicemembers under investigation for violating the Act to combat missions or, if they were already so deployed, delayed the completion of the investigation until the end of the deployment. > . > . > . > This evidence, in particular, directly undermines any contention that the Act furthers the Government’s purpose of military readiness, as it shows Defendants continue to deploy gay and lesbian members of the military into combat, waiting until they have returned before resolving the charges arising out of the suspected homosexual conduct. If the warrior’s suspected violation of the Act created a threat to military readiness, to unit cohesion, or to any of the other important Government objectives, it follows that Defendants would not deploy him or her to combat before resolving the investigation. It defies logic that the purposes of the Act could be served by suspending the investigation during overseas deployments, only to discharge a servicemember upon his or her return to a non-combat station. I’m willing to give a great deal of deference to the military (and to Congress), but given that this is not rational basis analysis (see _Witt_) the government has to explain that away before they can defend DADT. They haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/9 "2010-09-10T19:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=boytyperanma] …and during the last presidential election both candidates endorsed a repeal. [/QUOTE] Whether or not McCain was against it depended on the wording and the day of the week and what he had for lunch. Most recently he was[against it](http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/05/27/john-mccain-filibuster-to-stop-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-.html) and has said he would resist the repeal if it was ordered. The most infuriating thing is that McCain has done just as much as Obama to overturn it. And the most infuriating thing about that is it makes me have to say “Thank you Log Cabin Republicans” without sarcasm. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/10 "2010-09-10T19:25:49Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > The Justice Dept seems like it just rolled over and mailed it in, in fact. I wonder if that was Obama’s strategy? Just put up a completely braindead case to let some California judge take the arrows in the back for the administration? > > \ > > I mean, WTF? To me, it looks like Obama took the pussy way out by letting Holder take a dive instead of standing up for what he supposedly believed in. Err…do you realize the case was filed in 2004? Why is this Obama’s doing? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/11 "2010-09-10T19:38:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why is this Obama’s doing? First he got the Delorean up to 88 miles per hour, and then… ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/12 "2010-09-10T19:50:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > = > > Err…do you realize the case was filed in 2004? > > Why is this Obama’s doing? **Mr Smashy** seems to be arguing that Obama or Obama appointees ordered the AUSAs who were representing the government to take a dive, since the case finally went to trial in July 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/13 "2010-09-10T19:56:31Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > > = > > > > Err…do you realize the case was filed in 2004? > > > > Why is this Obama’s doing? > > **Mr Smashy** seems to be arguing that Obama or Obama appointees ordered the AUSAs who were representing the government to take a dive, since the case finally went to trial in July 2010. So, until early 2009 the government attorneys were chomping at the bit with a killer case they had spent the last five years preparing to support DADT and then Obama came in and said shred the lot of it, take a dive? Something like that? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/14 "2010-09-10T19:58:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Camus](#): > > > > **Mr Smashy** seems to be arguing that Obama or Obama appointees ordered the AUSAs who were representing the government to take a dive, since the case finally went to trial in July 2010. > > So, until early 2009 the government attorneys were chomping at the bit with a killer case they had spent the last five years preparing to support DADT and then Obama came in and said shred the lot of it, take a dive? > > Something like that? Yes. Those Muslims are sneaky like that! ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/15 "2010-09-10T20:13:14Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yes. Those Muslims are sneaky like that! [/QUOTE] For the last time Obama’s not a Muslim, he’s a he’s an African Liberation theologist under the Svengaliesque sway of Jeremiah Wright. He can time travel though. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/16 "2010-09-10T20:22:34Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > [QUOTE=John Mace] > > Yes. Those Muslims are sneaky like that! For the last time Obama’s not a Muslim, he’s a he’s an African Liberation theologist under the Svengaliesque sway of Jeremiah Wright. He can time travel though. [/QUOTE] I suppose you then have proof that he was not a muslim **before** he went back in time to become “an African Liberation theologist under the Svengaliesque sway of Jeremiah Wright.” Edit: So has anyone heard if the Justice Dept. is going to appeal? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/17 "2010-09-10T20:25:28Z")
> [@Tahssa](#): > > > [@Sampiro](#): > > > > For the last time Obama’s not a Muslim, he’s a he’s an African Liberation theologist under the Svengaliesque sway of Jeremiah Wright. He can time travel though. > > I suppose you then have proof that he was not a muslim **before** he went back in time to become “an African Liberation theologist under the Svengaliesque sway of Jeremiah Wright.” That was a completely different timeline and doesn’t count in this one. And some future biographers claim he hasn’t even done it yet. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/18 "2010-09-10T21:18:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@Camus](#): > > > > **Mr Smashy** seems to be arguing that Obama or Obama appointees ordered the AUSAs who were representing the government to take a dive, since the case finally went to trial in July 2010. > > So, until early 2009 the government attorneys were chomping at the bit with a killer case they had spent the last five years preparing to support DADT and then Obama came in and said shred the lot of it, take a dive? > > Something like that? I’m just going by what they said in that right wing rag, the Washington Post. The writer makes it sound like the Government didn’t even present a case as part of the defense of the law/rule. It’s just a guess, but it fits the facts. We know Obama is against the rule. We know he hates the military. We know he hates America. And we know he’s a pussy… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/19 "2010-09-10T21:27:53Z")
> [@Tahssa](#): > > So has anyone heard if the Justice Dept. is going to appeal? I expect them to appeal. They will do anything they can to drag it out till after the elections at this point. While the administration may have interest in letting the ruling go into effect, as proven with other issues like DOMA, they would much rather defend vigorously defend the existing law and effectively ‘punch the hippy’ then give the right another issue to flail them with. If by some miracle this motivates the Senate to do their job and bring the bill to the floor I’d be tickled pink, but I just don’t see it happening. That would imply the Democrats would actual stand up for the gay community they hit up any time they need votes. They never seem to deliver to the gay community when needed however. Like this case. When it came to fighting for the rights of gays. How sad is it that the leadership was actually delivering for the gay community is Republican. Prop 8 repeal though a team effort in my opinion it was Olson, the Republican that made it happen, now with the DADT repeal the gay Republican lobby has delivered. It would be nice to see the main recipients(Democrats) of gay dollars deliver in a similar fashion. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255/20 "2010-09-10T21:32:51Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > The writer makes it sound like the Government didn’t even present a case as part of the defense of the law/rule. Even the best lawyers can’t make a great case when they’re tasked with defending bullshit. They’ve certainly been putting effort into delaying the ruling. It’s been 6 years now. Given the circumstances they are doing pretty well. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-was-unexpected-dadt-ruled-unconstitutional/553255.md?page=2)