The good news for our LGBT friends continues. This district court’s decision took me completely by surprise, and I welcome it.
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.
Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <LA Times>
We owe our thanks to all our service people, regardless of sexual orientation. We have lost far too many qualified and dedicated people to this draconian policy, and I call on the Obama administration to let this decision stand.
8 Responses to “Ask!! Tell!!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It was good news. I’m sure short lived but non the less good news. Baby steps I guess is all we could expect.
It will depend on what Obama directs Holder to do, or if he does not, what Holder choses to do. If there is no appeal, DADT is dead.
This is excellent news. I’m surprised at how little coverage this ruling has gotten in the mainstream media. I watched the 11 o’clock news last night (NBC) and nobody even mentioned it.
Hate sells more soap, Tom. Isn’t that sad? 🙁
Mostly good news in the sense that it puts pressure on Congress to repeal DADT. The downside is the judge’s ruling is not all that well crafted, most likely will be appealed, which will take years.
The easier and cheaper (not to mention correct) course would be for Congress to do the right thing and get rid of DADT … but I ain’t holding my breath for THAT to happen.
Sidebar: Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the government has 60 days after the entry of final judgment to file a notice of appeal. There are now only 52 days until the election, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s no immediate action on this from the DOJ. Plus being without a Solicitor General at the present time doesn’t help in making rapid assessments.
Nameless, as I understand it, DADT repeal has passed the House and is stalled in the Senate by a personal hold from McConJob. DOJ may have signalled their intent to let the decision stand by their singular lack of effort in defending the case, which they are required by law to do. They are not required to appeal.
You’re correct – it did pass the House. It was introduced and passed out of Senate committee in early June, so it’s possible that it could be acted on this month:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3454
It may appear that the DOJ didn’t mount a very vigorous defense, but that’s mostly because they wanted the case structured as a facial challenge, and by introducing witnesses and evidence they were concerned it would be changed to an as-applied constitutional challenge.
As it turns out, the judge allowed plaintiffs to introduce evidence and witnesses, who were extremely well prepared and gave excellent – and obviously persuasive – testimony. And so it became as as-applied challenge.
So while the DOJ held to their idea of making this a facial challenge, they did introduce not only a motion to dismiss but a motion for summary judgment and motions in limine to exclude essentially every exhibit and witness proffered by the plaintiff, and objected continuously during trial to the introduction of those same exhibits and witness testimony.
It would be highly unusual for the government to fail to appeal a district court decision striking down a federal statute – and that’s what has me concerned, because on appeal I think the DOJ (i.e., DADT) would prevail.
Much safer to have Congress simply repeal DADT – and be done with that silly policy.
Nameless, you may well be correct in your prediction, and I have always favored repeal.