Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from schadenfreude99. Show schadenfreude99's posts

    Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    Sounds kinda odd, doesn't it ?

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/12/high_court_rejects_plea_to_block_gay_military_ban/?p1=News_links
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    Hmmm- Obama wants the law overturned by the legislative body instead of "activist" judges.  A group of people that are members of a political organization that consistently criticize "activist" judges whenever a judge overturns a law, has gone to court to overturn a law that their own organization wants left alone.

    Up is down and down is up.

    Do you think if the armed forces were still segregated and Dems wanted to desegregate it, the repubs would be blocking the effort?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]Hmmm- Obama wants the law overturned by the legislative body instead of "activist" judges.  A group of people that are members of a political organization that consistently criticize "activist" judges whenever a judge overturns a law, has gone to court to overturn a law that their own organization wants left alone. Up is down and down is up. Do you think if the armed forces were still segregated and Dems wanted to desegregate it, the repubs would be blocking the effort?
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    Seriously??

    You do not see what's happening here? It's a shell game. Dems have the word out that Obama is waiting for the recess to end then have congress overturn it "cause he doesn't want activist judges to do it" then he will say we need to wait for the pentagon report, then it will be "crap we ran out of time cause Republicans wouldn't help" then, well we have a republican controlled congress now so, it's not our fault!!

    Keep defending them though, they depend on it!!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]Sounds kinda odd, doesn't it ? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/12/high_court_rejects_plea_to_block_gay_military_ban/?p1=News_links
    Posted by schadenfreude99[/QUOTE]

    I think this should be debated in Congress based on unfair taxation.  That would be more far-reaching.  Gays pay just as much tax, but are denied the benefits of military service - socialized health care for life, education grants and V.A. mortgages.  They pay for everyone else's benes though, through unfair taxation.

    If being gay is considered a mental disorder, they should receive disability benfits - or at least be given a tax deduction for being denied benefits they have to pay for anyway.

    If someone finds it repulsive to fight next to a black or gay man, that's THEIR problem.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    It amazing how far liberals will go to avoid the truth in this matter!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]DADT is a DEMOCRAT 's EO. that overruled a DEMOCRAT congress' recodification of THE OUTRIGHT BAN, on gays in the military .  Obambi, CAMPAIGNED on its elimination, and a Fed Court gift wrapped it for him. AND HE IS CHALLENGING THE GIFT! Do you realize at all, what the legislative check on the judiciary is? It's Constitutional Amendment, PERIOD! Dems wanna wait for that? - then just come out and say, "Its just not that important" - You lying bunch of pr1cks! You idiots actually think we need the courts to kill DADT, and at the SAME TIME, challenge it WHEN THEY DO! YOU  look like idiots YOU. created the need for DADT.  YOU, then made DADT law.  YOU campaigned on its abolishment, and when handed it, YOU are fighting it in court! YOU. are the hypocritic a55holes. Again
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    My my my.  Greg, for someone who usually has a relatively clear grasp of facts and generlaly does not go ballistic, this post takes me aback.

    1.  Who are you yelling at?  Democrats it general?  Dirtywaterlover?

    2.  Anyone who has ever uttered the slightest peep about "activist judges" has NOTHING to say here.  (I do not recall your using this term).  Any such person who said "activist judge" and says anything to criticize Obama's appeal of the district court's order is a worthless-sack-of-shit.  A liar. 

    3.  Anyone who has ever said that DADT should be repealed by the legislative process after the military weighs in, and who criticzes Obama's appeal of the district court ruling, is more or less behaving like a used tampon and should be shot on the spot.

    4.  DADT is Democrats?  Yes.  But you conveniently omit the pertinent facts:

    a.  Before DADT, gays could be investigated for gayness and booted from the military.

    b.  Congress was not going to repeal the ban on gays serving.

    c.  Therefore, DADT - preventing the military from investigating, etc., - was the next best thing. 

    Someone who pretends not to understand that, to quote you, is one of the "hypocritic a55holes."  You're pretending like the Democrats passed DADT to punish gays.  Digusting.

    5.  Republicans killed legislative repeal of DADT and the federal legislation making gays serving in the military.

    __________________________________

    All that aside, Obama should drop the appeal. He campaigned on repealing DADT.  The military has had time to weigh in (and many soldiers did so). 

    He is being unjust and simultaneously making a strategic blunder, in trying to repeal it by legislation and legislation only.  Leave the ruling in place. 

    Make a list of any Republicans in government who support the ruling, and wait until they whine about "activist judges" in some other respect, point out their reeking hypocrisy.









     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

     Anyone who has ever said that DADT should be repealed by the legislative process after the military weighs in, and who criticzes Obama's appeal of the district court ruling, is more or less behaving like a used tampon and should be shot on the spot.


    Talk about ballistic.....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : My my my.  Greg, for someone who usually has a relatively clear grasp of facts and generlaly does not go ballistic, this post takes me aback. 1.  Who are you yelling at?  Democrats it general?  Dirtywaterlover? 2.  Anyone who has ever uttered the slightest peep about "activist judges" has NOTHING to say here.  (I do not recall your using this term).  Any such person who said "activist judge" and says anything to criticize Obama's appeal of the district court's order is a worthless-sack-of-shit.  A liar.  3.  Anyone who has ever said that DADT should be repealed by the legislative process after the military weighs in, and who criticzes Obama's appeal of the district court ruling, is more or less behaving like a used tampon and should be shot on the spot. 4.  DADT is Democrats?  Yes.  But you conveniently omit the pertinent facts: a.  Before DADT, gays could be investigated for gayness and booted from the military. b.  Congress was not going to repeal the ban on gays serving. c.  Therefore, DADT - preventing the military from investigating, etc., - was the next best thing.  Someone who pretends not to understand that, to quote you, is one of the " hypocritic a55holes. "  You're pretending like the Democrats passed DADT to punish gays.  Digusting. 5.  Republicans killed legislative repeal of DADT and the federal legislation making gays serving in the military. __________________________________ All that aside, Obama should drop the appeal. He campaigned on repealing DADT.  The military has had time to weigh in (and many soldiers did so).  He is being unjust and simultaneously making a strategic blunder, in trying to repeal it by legislation and legislation only.  Leave the ruling in place.  Make a list of any Republicans in government who support the ruling, and wait until they whine about "activist judges" in some other respect, point out their reeking hypocrisy.
    Posted by WhatIsItNow[/QUOTE]

    Whatisitnow,

    The problem is that dems and in this case Obama ran on it, and most on the left lap it up that they or he are/is the champions of equal rights. Then he turns around and takes the best opportunity ever to change it and sidesteps it with rhetoric about letting congress legislate it all the while knowing that's not going to happen!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : Whatisitnow, The problem is that dems and in this case Obama ran on it, and most on the left lap it up that they or he are/is the champions of equal rights. Then he turns around and takes the best opportunity ever to change it and sidesteps it with rhetoric about letting congress legislate it all the while knowing that's not going to happen!!
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    Oh I agree that Obama is being a hypocrit for fighting this, and is personally pissing me off by doing so. 

    I was additionally pissed off when the Democrats bundled repeal of DADT and the statute making service by homosexuals unlawful.....with other legislation they knew would be opposed. 


    I'm just trying to keep things relatively fair here.

    The judge did something that usually earns the label "activist"; so, I say, anyone who ever complains about "activist" judges should PRAISE Obama for appealing the decision; don't want to hear any of those people complaining.

    Also, before anyone goes screaming about how Democrats "own" DADT, they need to realize that DADT was the best possible outcome at the time.  Congress  - Republicans and Democrats alike - would not repeal the statute making gays service unlawful.  So, the next best thing is to protect gays from investigation by implementing DADT.

    DADT was "cutting my arm off" in "do I die, or cut my arm off?"
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : Oh I agree that Obama is being a hypocrit for fighting this, and is personally pissing me off by doing so.  I was additionally pissed off when the Democrats bundled repeal of DADT and the statute making service by homosexuals unlawful.....with other legislation they knew would be opposed.  I'm just trying to keep things relatively fair here. The judge did something that usually earns the label "activist"; so, I say, anyone who ever complains about "activist" judges should PRAISE Obama for appealing the decision; don't want to hear any of those people complaining. Also, before anyone goes screaming about how Democrats "own" DADT, they need to realize that DADT was the best possible outcome at the time.  Congress  - Republicans and Democrats alike - would not repeal the statute making gays service unlawful.  So, the next best thing is to protect gays from investigation by implementing DADT. DADT was "cutting my arm off" in "do I die, or cut my arm off?"
    Posted by WhatIsItNow[/QUOTE]

    The Executive has to enforce the laws as they stand: he cannot pick and choose which laws he likes and which one he does not.  Otherwise we would have a hidden veto system through unopposed court actions. Congressional laws could be killed quietly in the courts without the possibility of an override. Of course, Obama could address the matter by executive order, but there are other laws on the books that have to be revoked by the legislative process.  I am sure the new Republican House will put it high on its list of goals for the coming term... 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]I think this should be debated in Congress based on unfair taxation.  That would be more far-reaching ------------------------- What on God's green Earth is more far reaching than, "The policy is unconstitutional and over"?
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    Lots, Greg.  If it is an issue of unfair taxation, that would reach to gays paying taxes to support other's marriages.  It's like asking me to pay taxes for other people's fishing and hunting licences. 

    We used to have a more "user based" tax system.  Roads and highways were funded through gasoline taxes.  If I want to drink or smoke, cigarette and liquor taxes covered it.  As far as DADT and DOMA, it's not a chice.  Gays are barred from the benefits of both.   So by denying benefits to a group who's paying equally is very unfair.  Can you think of ANY other group who is forced to pay taxes for a system that they aren't allowed to participate in?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : The Executive has to enforce the laws as they stand: he cannot pick and choose which laws he likes and which one he does not.  Otherwise we would have a hidden veto system through unopposed court actions. Congressional laws could be killed quietly in the courts without the possibility of an override. Of course, Obama could address the matter by executive order, but there are other laws on the books that have to be revoked by the legislative process.  I am sure the new Republican House will put it high on its list of goals for the coming term... 
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    As I understand it, the judge threw out (1) DADT, and (1) 10 USC 654(b), so if he did not appeal the judge's decision, there would be no need for legislation.

    I'm not sure I agree that failing to appeal a judicial decision overturning a law as unconstitutional amounts to a hidden veto. 

    As a practical matter, it would be a very difficult veto to exercise; the executive must wait on a judge to overturn a law he dislikes as unconstitutional, and then not appeal it.

    As a general matter, the role of the executive is to enforce the existing laws, but I do not think it necssarily extends to defending the constitutionality of laws at all levels of appeal. 

    And agents of the executive typically have discretion in how they enforce the law, indeed in what laws to enforce; US attornies pick which crimes to charge, which losses to appeal, which parts of appeals to concede, whether to seek cert.   Etc.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]Can you think of ANY other group who is forced to pay taxes for a system that they aren't allowed to participate in?
    Posted by wraughn[/QUOTE]

    To play devil's advocate, yes.  Welfare. 

    Working people pay taxes that fund welfare, but cannot participate so long as they are in the group "working people". 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    Keep in mind that Muslims dont like gays at all.

    Just saying.

    LOL
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : THIS democrat's administration, NEEDS to explain the fact that THEY are CHALLENGING, an UNBELIEVABLY, liberal court's decision, that the have just GIFTWRAPPED, a court decision, that fulfills one of HIS promises, - AND HE IS FIGHTING SAID GIFT, IN COURT - UNDER OATH!. Please explain that - and, BTW, the "if congress says it, its more far reaching", is RIDICULOUS/LAUGHABLE/ABSURD!!! Please beat, "its ILLEGAL.  STOP IT!!!!" From  a FEDRAL COURT, and none other, but the frigg1n, 9th! NOW!  Would be good!
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    The Executive's job is to enforce the laws on the books, not to seek to rewrite the laws by failing to enforce them.  There is not much discretion when it comes to appeals on issues of a constitutional dimension impacting a major governmental responsibility.  

    That said, I think Obama has dithered politically in not dealing with the issue of Gay Rights in general (resolving Guantanamo as well). 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT : The Executive's job is to enforce the laws on the books, not to seek to rewrite the laws by failing to enforce them.  There is not much discretion when it comes to appeals on issues of a constitutional dimension impacting a major governmental responsibility.   That said, I think Obama has dithered politically in not dealing with the issue of Gay Rights in general (resolving Guantanamo as well). 
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]


    All I know is, if George Bush had decided to make removing DADT a part of his legacy, it would have been done: through congress or through some other means.Obama isn't being aggressive enough on this issue, and he is going to pay the price for it, because 10% of the population isn't going to be motivated to vote for dems in 2010.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ForumCleaner. Show ForumCleaner's posts

    Re: Democrat President fighting a Republican Gay Rights Group to keep DADT

    It isn't judicial activism. He is really just bringing legislation into line with the constitution. Just like brown v board of education. That is the whole point of our system of checks and balances. The congress can't make unconstitutional laws, and when they do, the judicial branch is supposed to step in.
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share