More

Obama DOJ Objects To DADT Injunction

JULIE WATSON   09/23/10 09:56 PM ET   AP

Doj Dadt

SAN DIEGO — Attorneys for the Obama administration objected Thursday to a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a California federal judge that would halt the military's ban on openly gay troops.

Calling the possible move "untenable," Department of Justice attorneys filed their objections in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

They said Judge Virginia Phillips, who declared the policy unconstitutional earlier this month, would be overstepping her bounds if she tried to stop it in its tracks.

Instead, she should limit any injunction to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit to stop enforcement of the ban, the lawyers said.

The case has put the White House in the uncomfortable position of defending a policy President Obama has said he wants repealed.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the Department of Justice traditionally defends legal challenges to acts of Congress, but that does not mean the administration is backpedaling on its efforts to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell."

"This filing in no way diminishes the president's firm commitment to achieve a legislative repeal of DADT – indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy," Gibbs said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

Phillips was asked to order an injunction that would immediately stop the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy from being used to discharge any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world.

"A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe," federal attorneys said in their objection.

Phillips has said she will issue an order to stop the policy nationwide. The policy also is being challenged in a federal court in Tacoma, Wash. where a lawyer for a decorated flight nurse discharged for being gay is urging a federal judge to reinstate her to the Air Force Reserve.

The judge in that case was expected to issue his ruling Friday and has expressed strong doubts about government arguments seeking to have the dismissal upheld.

Department of Justice officials declined to comment further.

Attorney Dan Woods, who is representing the Log Cabin Republicans, called the government's objections "hypocritical and particularly disappointing" since Democrats recently failed to muster enough votes in the Senate to repeal the policy.

He said it also ignores the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans won their lawsuit seeking an order to stop the policy nationwide.

"It's like the South saying they won the Civil War," Woods said.

Woods said he will file a response outlying those points on Friday.

"In asking for a stay, they are ignoring again that the judge has repeatedly refused to stay the case because Congress is talking about 'don't ask, don't tell,'" he said. "And frankly worse of all to me, it ignores the harm that is being suffered by service members."

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
SAN DIEGO — Attorneys for the Obama administration objected Thursday to a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a California federal judge that would halt the military's ban on openl...
SAN DIEGO — Attorneys for the Obama administration objected Thursday to a proposed worldwide injunction being considered by a California federal judge that would halt the military's ban on openl...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 44
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:00 AM on 10/01/2010
Great comments. Folks are starting to wake up to what a phony Obama is. All he has to do is comply with the Federal judges order.

During the Prop 8 debate in Nov of 08, his comment about marriage being between one man and one woman was used by opponents of gay marriage to help end gay marriage in California. Black voters who came out to vote for Obama in record numbers also voted against gay marriage in record numbers. Statistics showed that if Obama had not been running in that election that gay marriage would not have been defeated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
06:42 PM on 09/25/2010
Clear proof of where our "allies" in the Democratic Party stand on helping to secure our equal rights.

"Instead, she should limit any injunction to the 19,000 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights organization that filed the lawsuit to stop enforcement of the ban, the lawyers said."

In other words, force gay military member to join the Log Cabin Republicans in order to be protected from an unjust law that has been declared unconstitutional.

This marketing ploy has potential. "Hey black voters, if you want to be protected from laws that violate your right to vote, you'll have to join Aryan Nation." "Hey Hispanic voters, if you want to be protected from racial profiling by bigoted law enforcement officers, you'll need to pay a fee to the Arizona Police Department and slap their 'supporter' sticker on your car (or baby stroller)."

Obama's insistence that gay democrats join the Log Cabin Republicans is interesting. Nice to know where we stand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:24 PM on 09/24/2010
He ought to be ashamed of himself.

To quote Dr. King: "For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

The fact that it's a guy whose parents marriage would have landed his father in jail in a bunch of Southern states makes it so much worse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
06:53 PM on 09/25/2010
We're being told to choose between the Party of No and the Party of Not Yet.

I choose the Party of None of the Above.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnW49
"A great democracy must be progressive." TR
03:28 PM on 09/24/2010
"A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations"

The idea that stopping the ban is a ginormous change is pathetic. Troops already KNOW beyond a doubt that they are serving with gay and Lesbian soldiers. If prejudice and retaliation are what they are worried about, the only "change" the military needs in its operations is to be willing and ready to dismiss those who do not obey discipline. The military has already shown itself to be adept at dismissing people, so the methods are already in place.
06:48 PM on 09/24/2010
This administration is nothing but genius in the art of making excuses!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Chris1962
NYC
02:51 PM on 09/24/2010
Harry Reid's Winning Strategy -- It's Losing
[excerpt] This week, Reid called for a vote on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Everyone knew the measure would fail, and it did, leaving supporters angry that in his fervor to make Republicans look obstructionist, Reid damaged their cause. Ditto his decision to put the DREAM Act -- a measure that would provide citizenship for young people who were in the country illegally but had attended college or served in the military -- in a military spending bill.

Why would a political leader call for votes that he knows he will lose? Reid spokesman Jim Manley told Politico, "It's about Senate Republicans' pattern of obstructing debate on myriad policies of critical importance to the American people."
 
My take: Reid is desperate to gin up anger among Nevada's Latino and gay voters as he seeks re-election. Toward that end, he appears willing to hurt the very causes he supports.... [continued]
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/harry_reid_s_winning_strategy_it_s_losing
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
09:07 AM on 09/24/2010
I don't understand. On the one hand, it's "unconstitutional". And on the other, it's being defended by the DOJ. Can't they just walk away from it? What's in it for the WH and the DOJ to defend this unconstitutional law that they want to have repealed?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProudLiberalDan
Standing up an fighting conservatives since 1987
08:58 AM on 09/24/2010
Barack Obama, the stand-for-nothing corporatist President, ran for office promising to be our "fierce advocate". Who knew he would abdicate that role to Lady Gaga.

Look at how Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8 in Court because he believed in was unconstitutional. There are numerous precedents of Presidents and administrations not defending laws.

Barack Obama turned out a complete and total fraud. A political stand-for-nothing corporatist con artist who will throw any anyone under the bus, publicly mock them, insult them through their minions, and then question why they don't turn around and donate their money, time and enthusiastically vote for them. He wasn't the first political con artist to get elected and he won't be the last.

The Senate Democrats turned out to be just as bad. They WANT the weakest Senate Majority Leader in history. The filibuster is NOT in the U.S. Constitution. It is an internal Senate rule that they could have changed, reformed or modified at any time.. The Senate Democrats WANTED to be obstructed so the corporate campaign cash will keep flowing and so they can dangle carrots over their supporters heads that they'll never deliver in order to continue to raise money.

They are about to learn a lesson they won't forget.

The GayTM stays closed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
09:07 AM on 09/24/2010
wow. well said.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Flip75
What's wrong with my micro-bio?
09:35 AM on 09/24/2010
Fanned and faved - well said.
06:50 AM on 09/24/2010
Dear Mr. President: No matter how hard you try to court the far right, no matter how many "planks" of the Democratic party you cast aside in your effort to gain the love of the right, that 40% of the nation that hates you will continue to hate you. Man up. 53% of the nation voted for you and you got a Nobel Peace Prize: not for your accomplishments, but for what we hoped you'd accomplish. So the time is way overdue for you to start supporting your BASE. We put you there, and the way things are going, alot of depressed people (I won't be among them), just won't bother to vote. And alot of nightmarish, insane candidates will be in congress. Do you get it? 40% of the nation will always hate you no matter what you do! The other 60% of us hope for your positive leadership.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Chris1962
NYC
02:23 PM on 09/24/2010
>>>53% of the nation voted for you and you got a Nobel Peace Prize: not for your accomplishments, but for what we hoped you'd accomplish. So the time is way overdue for you to start supporting your BASE.>>>

News flash: Obama's been screwing his base since Day One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk "Quid pro quo" is out of Daschel's mouth, not mine.

It's nice to finally see the Left trying to wake the rest of the Left up. To date, it's just been the Righties, trying to tell them that they've been duped by a fast-tracking, slick-talking "man of change."

You're welcome.
05:36 AM on 09/24/2010
It is policy decisions like this that I sometimes leads me to rethink my vote for Obama. I am an independent and have been for 30 years. When I think of this country being run by McCain/Palin, I am satisfied that I made the right decision. I know the President wants this situation fixed by changing the law so that it is a permanent fix. However the Republican Governor and Attorney General in California are choosing not to appeal a Fed judge’s decision on Prop 8. It is possible this is being done by the administration to head off an election issue for Repubs to use and cut down the number of social conservatives who turn out to vote against Dems. If so, I think the WH is wasting its time.
04:00 AM on 09/24/2010
What part of "unconstitutional" does the Obama administration not understand? The following objection is ridiculous:

"A court should not compel the Executive to implement an immediate cessation of the seventeen year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military’s operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe."

Yes, the President is tasked with directing military missions and maximizing military readiness, but he is NOT permitted to violate the Constitution in performance of those duties, nor are those duties a valid pretext for usurping the authority of the Judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Candidate Obama knew that, or at least he said he did.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Chris1962
NYC
02:29 PM on 09/24/2010
>>>What part of "unconstitutional" does the Obama administration not understand?>>>

That's what Righties were asking, with respect to the "mandate." But then evil Fox — which the White House doesn't want the Left paying any attention to, hello — reported the reason. And then PBS went so far as to put out a documentary. Notice that "quid pro quo" are Tom Daschel's words, not mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk

And STILL Lefties don't have a clue that the man of "change" has been full of bull from the start. Because they're been trained by the White House to reject the only news organization that isn't in bed with the
White House.

Waaaaaaaaaaake UP, folks!
03:13 AM on 09/24/2010
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_100909_logcabin.html

Read it. It's long, but fascinating. One of the most fascinating points is that the Defense only argued constitutional issues and did not address the military readiness issue at all. The Plaintiff provided a lot of testimony on that issue.

Question for the lawyers among us: Can an appeal be brought on the grounds of an issue the Defense ignored during the trial?

Note: It was a lackluster defense at best.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
02:53 AM on 09/24/2010
The hypocrisy of having the DOJ defend DADT using language like this:

"The government also states that an immediate termination of the 17-year-old policy may pose a threat to the military."

Is just too much for me. There is no excuse for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
namdlogd
03:30 AM on 09/24/2010
none whatsoever
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Chris1962
NYC
04:54 AM on 09/24/2010
Just out of curiosity, has it ever occured to the Left that maybe Obama and the White House are spinning you guys like tops, and always have been? For example, how come the public option was dropped? Do you even know? And if your answer includes anything about the evil Republicans blocking it, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk The words "quid quo pro" are Tom Daschel's, not mine.

Does that look like "change you can believe in'? And are you still hearing about how the Republicans are in bed with the Health Insurance industry? The Left is being so manipulated by this man of "change," it's ridiculous. People need to start waking up. Here's the whole episode. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

You  might also wanna learn all about how the 2008 meltdown was not Bush's fault; it was the fault of Clinton's economic team lying to congress. You'll notice some familiar faces, too, like Summers and Geithner.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
11:36 AM on 09/24/2010
You're singing to the choir. Obama made a backroom deal with For Profit hospitals to stop a public option from becoming law. I am well aware of what he has and hasn't done for us.

But if you think that will send us running to the arms of Republicans, you're mistaken.
01:36 AM on 09/24/2010
If the courts had ruled slavery unconstitutional, would President Obama delay the injunction to argue that the repeal should wait for Congress? Would President Lincoln had done the same?

Interesting.
03:15 AM on 09/24/2010
Legally they have to. We, the people, deserve the best defense of our laws possible. The Attorney General and DOJ are our lawyers. The fact that a large majority of us want the law overturned is immaterial at this point. It is DOJ's constitutional duty to defend the law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DocTonyNYC
05:48 AM on 09/24/2010
No it isn't. They had an obligation to defend the law, and they did that. They do not have an obligation to appeal. A parallel to this is the Prop 8 decision where the state of CA does not have an obligation to appeal.

They had their opportunity to give the best possible defense of our laws, and they failed. Now is the time to allow the court decision to stand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
08:16 AM on 09/24/2010
BUT the DoJ also has the right to pick and choose which laws and appeals it fights, as we have seen with the fight taken on with the AZ SB1070 law. There are other states and cities that have passed laws similar to that of AZ but they are not being sued by the DoJ.

As with the Supreme Court picking and choosing which cases to hear, so the DoJ picks and chooses which cases to fight.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
01:16 AM on 09/24/2010
Talk about mixed emotions: The Justice Department is objecting to the federal judge issuing an injunction against the enforcement of DADT while at the same time President Obama says he wants the law to be done away with. President Truman ended military segregation by executive order. What has changed that prevents Obama from doing the same with DADT?

The argument that "military operations will be jeopardized" is specious --- the military has been doing business as usual with gay service personnel quietly doing their jobs alongside their straight counterparts. If any thing, it will allow them to do their job better because they won't have the added stress of losing their job because someone else is snooping in their personal business.

And the first person who brings up, "What about the showers?" had better expect to be laughed at.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
08:20 AM on 09/24/2010
Agree - and fanned. Compare the number of rape cases in the military (men and women) with the number of cases where a gay or lesbian has been charged with a sexual crime against a straight. The president has the power to change this DADT but does not seem to have the courage to do so.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
10:03 PM on 09/24/2010
Thanks for the agreement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
09:11 AM on 09/24/2010
well said Jdaddy
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
10:04 PM on 09/24/2010
Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
01:02 AM on 09/24/2010
I find it strange that reporter Julie Watson used the term "worldwide" in the opening paragraph and that Huffington Post's online editors didn't make a correction. Surely she meant "nationwide" as was used later on in the story?
03:16 AM on 09/24/2010
I took it to mean that the injunction would apply to troops stationed outside of US territorial boundaries.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
06:36 AM on 09/24/2010
I thought about that, too. But I think it is technically incorrect and sloppy journalism.