More flip-flopping - DADT

[AZhitman]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.a ... tml?hpt=T1

Cliff's Notes: Obama Administration seeking an injunction that will prohibit admission of openly gay service members to the military, while a Republican group sues to protect the right of gays to serve their country.

Who'da thunk it?

(Yes, I know the BO Administration is in favor of repealing the policy... after they micromanage the piss out of the military, which is arguably more efficent than the White House, and could probably manage this transition just fine without the meddling of Mr. Community Organizer...)

[IBCoupe]

Hooray for Government lawyers being required to defend Government policy!

Look, write your Congressman, if it bugs you. President Obama has stated he wants this to be a change through the legislature, not the judiciary.

[IBCoupe]

Let me elaborate: the Justice Department's #1 job is to defend the duly enacted laws of Congress. There are only two situations where they get to shirk that responsibility: (1) where the issue at stake involves a conflict between the Executive and another branch of government, and (2) where the unconstitutionality of Congress' law is so blatantly obvious that no defense can be mounted.

Prepared to make either of those claims about DADT? I'm sure many are prepared to go with the second, but I don't think you'll find that those "many" are lawyers.

[AppleBonker]

IBC, mind elaborating a bit more? Why wouldn't the policy be discriminatory and therefor potentially a constitutional issue? Note: I am no lawyer (hell, not even close) so I'm sorry if this is a truly stupid question.

[IBCoupe]

You're absolutely spot on: it is most assuredly a constitutional issue. But here's why the DoJ has to defend it: it's not so obviously unconstitutional as to require no debate to prove it such. Here's an easy test: if you can find a lawyer willing to stand up and argue that it is constitutional, it's not that far.

[AppleBonker]

Thanks. But aren't all constitutional issues in somewhat of a gray area?

[IBCoupe]

Exactly. Where it's blatantly unconstitutional is where there probably wouldn't be a law in the first place.

[AppleBonker]

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining.

[heliochrome85]

and IB brings the knowledge like thunder from the sky

[IBCoupe]

I try.

Being that there aren't usually laws passed that are blatantly unconstitutional, I could come up with a hypothetical one, but apparently, that's for the weak.

[heliochrome85]

you? weak?

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

[AZhitman]

Makes sense.

However, you'd think, given BO's supposed brilliance, that he and his minions would have foreseen this.

Whether the GOP seizes on this flippity-flop and "takes the glory" for coming to the defense of gays, OR whether the left simply sees him as "selling out" the gay community over politics, it's still BAAAAAD juju for homey B.

Sure, IB can explain it to us nicely. Try explaining it to the general populace.

[heliochrome85]

god, there is so much bad Juju. so much.

[AZhitman]

I know.

I just like shining a really bright light on it...

Like a bigass 1000w metal halide with a mirrored reflector.

[heliochrome85]

we used to do the same with drunks in college. was fun. they couldnt see for a few minutes.

[AZhitman]

...kinda like when BO's TelePrompter takes a dump.

[heliochrome85]

or palins sharpie runs out of ink.

[AZhitman]

Nicely done, sir.

[IBCoupe]

However, you'd think, given BO's supposed brilliance, that he and his minions would have foreseen this.

My guess is that they did see this coming. That's why we had the statement that he would prefer it to be legislative action. Now, this could make its way to the Supreme Court (because there will be an appeal from the Appellate level, but I don't know if the Court will grant cert), and maybe he'd still prefer it to be a legislative change, but only after the SCOTUS denies cert or makes a ruling will the trial be done.

[dusred]

...kinda like when BO's TelePrompter takes a dump.

or palins sharpie runs out of ink.

WIN!

[heliochrome85]

Ill just leave this here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03521.html

i hope this is mccains last term. there are hookers on the street with more honor than he has.

[heliochrome85]

oh, and this.
http://tv.gawker.com/5690894/jon-stewar ... itique-yet

[AZhitman]

i hope this is mccains last term.

Agreed.

His stance on this issue alone has alienated me.

[IBCoupe]

As it turns out, the word "Maverick" actually means "Opportunistic Survivor"

[heliochrome85]

http://www.slate.com/id/2276466/

[audtatious]

At least we can cut military spending then. There will be no real reason to have separate barracks and facilities for women and men. Unisex it all.

[heliochrome85]

"On McCain's headstone it will say, "A Patriot and Soldier, Who Opposed Liberty and Civil Rights for Those Who Were Willing to Give Their Lives for Our Nation.""--Slate Commenter.

[audtatious]

Damn flip floppers

[heliochrome85]

Damn flip floppers

i want a pair

[audtatious]

You can get grass models too



or...maybe some Jesus shoes?