Free Markets, Free People


SCOTUS Says “No” To “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Challenge

The court chose not to hear the suit which challenged it, brought by an Army CPT, preferring, instead, to let the Obama administration deal with the subject. CPT Pietrangelo was originally 1 of 12 petitioners challenging DADT in court. Their case was dismissed by the 1st Circuit, but unlike the other 11 who chose to not appeal and let the Obama administration handle it, Pietrangelo appealed to SCOTUS. The result is as reported in the lede.

However, here’s the confusing part:

In opposing Supreme Court review of the Pietrangelo case, opponents of “don’t ask, don’t tell” have noted that Obama pledged during his presidential election campaign to end the policy. They say he appears to proceeding carefully to end the ban by first asking the Pentagon to study the implications and report its recommendations.

Why? Why is he “proceeding carefully”? One would assume that when someone declares he is going to end a policy, he has already gathered the information and done the studies necessary to understand the implications of changing such a policy might have before he declared he’d do it, right? [For the record I have no problem with trashing DADT.]

Oh wait, this is the same guy who declared he’d close Gitmo and end the Iraq war immediately after taking office, do away with FISA and hold the telcoms responsible, and have nothing to do with jailing bad guys indefinitely if they merely posed a threat to the US isn’t it?

Uh, nevermind.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

11 Responses to SCOTUS Says “No” To “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Challenge

  • There is a law involved here, in large part thanks to Bill Clinton.
    The Court would have had to overrule an explicit statue passed by Congress .. that takes some heavy lifting, which I doubt that the “LightWorker” will engage in any time soon.

    • I thought, and I could very well be wrong, that the problem is essentially that the UCMJ criminalizes sodomy.     Or is there a law that actually says that homosexuals are disqualified from service?     I’d got the idea somewhere or other that what homosexuals were (previously) discharged for was lying on their enlistment paperwork.    There was a spot, right next to “have you ever smoked pot”, that said “are you a homosexual”, so if you answered “no” and you lied, you could be discharged for lying.    If you answered “yes” it worked just like the pot question, and you never made it into the service to start with.    (I actually worked with a moron who thought he could get through his SBI – Top Secret clearance upgrade while refusing to answer a question about smoking pot.    Egad.)

      Clinton didn’t change the law.    So Clinton said… just don’t ask.    Take that question off the forms and don’t ask if someone is gay or not, so they don’t lie about it.      He could change the *form* without changing any of the laws,  so he did.

      How this ended up as an excuse to keep ROTC out of Harvard, etc., I’m uncertain, except that I’m pretty sure that the cart and horse were reversed and wanting to ban ROTC was a pre-existing condition.    DADT didn’t make it *worse* after all.

      Homosexuals can still be discharged, I’m just not sure what *for*.      Congress needs to change whatever law it is,  and I don’t think that Obama *can*.      If it’s just the part in the UCMJ about sodomy it doesn’t even have to be presented as a homosexual issue (since heterosexuals have been known to do that act) and could *maybe* get through Congress quietly.    

      The best thing to do might actually be to piddle along and do nothing until DADT becomes DADTDC  (don’t care).     If Congress gets involved and homosexuals have to be taken official notice of, the most likely thing to happen, it seems to me, is a requirement to declare sexual orientation at induction and career limitations according to that, just like females have now.     It will be, “Congratulations, fellas, you’re officially in now.  Enjoy those state-side  support jobs!”

  • Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a temporary hold Monday on the deal to sell Chrysler to save it from collapse. Her order, however, simply gives her or the full Court more time to ponder whether to postpone the sale further, or allow it to go forward.

  • Mc-Q:  One would assume that when someone declares he is going to end a policy, he has already gathered the information and done the studies necessary to understand the implications of changing such a policy might have before he declared he’d do it, right?

    I would agree with that statement most of the time but with things involving national security, the Pentagon or what-not there is alot of info that is not available before a person has the office of C&C. 

    I don’t think that really goes for Obama becuase it was/is pretty obvious  that he never gave a hoot about the outcomes of his policy statements accept for thier ability to get votes.

    • I would agree with that statement most of the time but with things involving national security, the Pentagon or what-not there is alot of info that is not available before a person has the office of C&C.

      That’s kind of the whole point of the post, Sky – you shouldn’t be promising concrete policy changes when you haven’t done the necessary homework and don’t have an understanding of the implications of the change. At best Obama should have promised to consider changing it after such things had been determined.

      • I didn’t say my point correctly. Let me try again.

        No challenger for a office would be able to beat a incumbent if they didn’t take concrete positions on the main challenges of the day , if they didn’t form their opinions on lacking info that can only be gotten after getting the office.

        • I’m not sure that’s true – but regardless, when you take a “concrete position” it should be safe to assume that you’ve done the homework necessary to champion that position, or you haven’t taken a “concrete position” at all, have you?

          • So any person who runs for a higher office should say “I have no idea what i’m talking about but if you elect me i’ll look into it.”

          • What they should say is what they’re going to do after they’ve informed themselves of the probable consequences of their promise.

          • I think that a person running for office should make clear where they lack knowledge and have to wait on data.

            But really… as a Senator there is very little “secret” data that is not available.      There is nothing secret about the situation at Gitmo, or hidden about DADT.   There may well be relevant information that is not available about ongoing wars or our diplomatic relationship with Pakistan… but even there, a Senator would probably be briefed on most of it.

            Is the difference available information or is the difference the fact that talk is cheap and actions have consequences?

            In any case, for DADT, it would be way too simple for anyone to do their own “study” if they cared… that’s what staff persons are for, after all.      Nothing stopped anyone from asking some people what they felt was necessary to end DADT and make it work.

  • “Just words.  Just [pause while teleprompter catches up] speeches.”

    Sound familiar?

    We can suppose that TAO is smart enough to know that many of the promises he made are going to be a little… difficult… to keep.  If so, then “why” he made them is easy to answer: because he’s also smart enough to know just how gullible his supporters are and he knows that he could tell them that the earth is flat, the sky is purple, and the sun rises in the west and they’d believe it.  So, when he tells them that he’s “proceeding carefully”, they’ll nod their heads and think, “Yep, he’s still on the case, and I still hate Bush.  He’ll do it any day now, while I’m still hating Bush.  Yessir, he’s gonna make good on that promise, just like I promise to always hate Bush.”

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet