On the ongoing confusion over the status of DADT, the military has announced a halt in its enforcement, but DOJ has announced its intent to appeal and requested a stay. President Barack Obama has finally explained why he’s handling it the way he is, and I think he is right, even though I don’t like it at all.
President Barack Obama says the military’s ban on gays serving openly in the military will end on his watch.
Speaking at a town hall meeting of young adults Thursday, Obama said he believes anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so regardless of sexual orientation.
However, Obama says he can’t end the "don’t ask, don’t tell" law with an executive order and is urging Congress to repeal it.
The president did not discuss his administration’s response to a California judge’s order that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. The Justice Department has asked the judge to allow the policy to remain in place during an appeal…
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Obama explained himself at the MTV Town Hall Meeting.
There is precedent for Obama to order a halt in enforcement of DADT, but the precedent is not the desegregation of the military by Harry Truman. Segregation was military policy. DADT is law. The precedent Obama has to order is is the signing statements in which GW Bush unilaterally decided which laws he would enforce and which he would not. Do you remember how angry we were at him for that? Can we say Obama should do the exact same thing and justify it just because we agree with the policy? I want to very much, but I won’t.
By the same token, DOJ is obligated to defend the law as long as it is law. There is precedent for DOJ not defending law, but that precedent also falls under the Bush Administration’s abusive practices. Our best hope for relief there is that DOJ could appeal, but present to the court, that in DOJ’s opinion, the District Court ruling is correct. That would be legal and ethical. Odds are that the Ninth will grant the stay. However, I believe that the will uphold the lower court here.
Because Obama wants DADT gone for good, with no possibility of Republicans resurrecting it, he is right to do it the right way. Being right isn’t always fair, and in this case, that goes double.
8 Responses to “Being Right Isn’t Always Fair”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I disagree – they don’t have to appeal that ruling. If they do appeal it, I would hope that they don’t try very hard to defend it and I certainly don’t want it going to SCOTUS.
Lisa, most of the legal opinions I have read on the subject have concluded that it would be improper for DOJ not to defend current law. However, they mounted a weak defense to the original suit. I don’t want SCOTUS to get their idealogue claws on it either, which is why we must keep prressure on the Senate to repeal it.
An article I read (I think on Huffington Post) referenced how the Judge ruled, and the way they ruled could jeopardize various other federal programs. Although I do not like how long it is taking to repeal this damn thing, I have a basic understanding that the administration is taking a correct approach to make sure the law stays dead and buried…
That’s the way I see it too, Kevin.
Obama has no problem ignoring the Convention Against Torture, which has a non-discretionary requirement to prosecute all known torture cases committed in his country or by citizens thereof (and specifically rejects “I was only following orders” as a defence); why should he have a problem ignoring DADT?
Welcome LnO. 🙂
Were you a regular here, you would know that I have slammed Obama over that issue many times. But you appear to be arguing that being wrong on one issue justifies being wrong on another too. I disagree. I prefer my own approach of praising him on those issues where he is right, even if I don’t like the results, and criticizing him on the issues where he’s wrong, even if I do like the results. If we have no integrity, what makes us any different from Republicans?
You misunderstand me. I am not arguing that ignoring the Convention Against Torture is right, or that it justifies ignoring DADT. My point is that the rule of law requires consistently following the law. By ignoring the Convention Against Torture, Obama abandoned the rule of law. It is, minimally, hypocritical of him to try to use a rule of law justification now.
OK, so you’re sissing him, because he did not over torture, a position with which I fully agree with you, and you’re calling him a hypocrite because he is following the rule of law over DADT. I see what you’re saying, but I still think it more rational to prase him for doing right and criticize him for doing wrong.