Ask! Tell! Don’t Expel!

On September 10, I covered Judge Phillips’ ruling that DADT is unconstitutional.  Yesterday the judge refused to delay implementation pending appeal and issued a court order banning further investigation and discharge of lesbian and gay service members, pursuant to DADT.  It is a welcome victory, long awaited and well deserved by the LGBT community.  Lets look at what happened and where to go from here.

A federal judge ordered an immediate halt Tuesday to discharges of openly gay and lesbian soldiers under the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, rejecting the Obama administration’s request to wait until Congress acts on the issue.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of Riverside ruled the 1993 law unconstitutional Sept. 9, saying it intrudes on service members’ personal lives and freedom of expression and reduces military effectiveness by needlessly excluding qualified personnel.

Her injunction Tuesday requires the government "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge" of service members based on their sexual orientation.

Judges commonly delay enforcement of such orders for a brief time to allow the government time to appeal. Rather than requesting a temporary stay during an appeal, however, the Obama administration asked Phillips to wait for an unspecified period while Congress decides whether to repeal the policy and the Pentagon studies the effect on its troops.

The judge refused, saying she had rejected three government requests to delay or suspend the trial and saw no evidence that would justify an indefinite stay. As of Tuesday, her order applies to all U.S. military forces worldwide… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <San Francisco Chronicle>

At least temporarily, DADT is dead.  Keith Olbermann covered the issue in two segments.  In the first, Keith interviewed plaintiff and Log Cabin Republican, Alexander Nicholson.

Frankly, I take issue with Nicholson’s apportionment of blame.  First, the DOJ is supposed to function in an apolitical fashion, defending the law of the land, whatever that land may be, regardless of the position of the administration.  We became used to DOJ functioning as a partisan entity during the Bush Regime, but for Democrats to follow suit would be just as wrong.  As long as DADT is law, DOJ is obligated to defend it.  Second, while Obama could have simply stopped enforcement as C-in-C, what would the result have been?  It would have taken the pressure off Congress to repeal the law. While the expulsions would have stopped, DADT would still be on the books and available for future administrations to implement.  In my view, getting DADT permanently repealed is best in the long term, even if it frustrates the “I want it all now” crowd.  Repealing DADT remains critical, because SCOTUS is likely to overturn Phillips’ decision.  Let’s put responsibility for this where it belongs.  A Democratic President slowed down DADT.  A Democratic House passed repeal.  Democrats in the Senate voted for repeal, but Republicans filibustered and voted unanimously to block it.  If they think they will ever get any support from the Republican Party, the Log Cabin Republicans have built their cabin on quick sand.  Don’t blame Democrats.  Move the damn cabin!

In the second segment, Keith interviews Barney Frank.

I agree with him.  The best way forward is to do nothing, pending repeal in the lame duck session.