Judge orders military to stop enforcing Don't Ask Don't Tell

[TheSarge]

A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights but delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

An appeal by the Department of Justice is anticipated.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/12/judge-orders-military-to-stop-enforcing-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[BlueStateSaint]

Isn't there supposed to be an appeal?

This should go over real well . . . 

[TheSarge]

Virginia A. Phillips (born 1957) is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. She is one of approximately 35 district judges serving in this district.

Phillips was born in Orange, California. She received a B.A. from the University of California, Riverside in 1979 and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1982. She was in private practice in Riverside, California from 1982 to 1991. She was a Commissioner for the Riverside County Superior Court from 1991 to 1995.

In 1995, Phillips became a United States magistrate judge for the Central District of California. On January 26, 1999, Phillips was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be a district judge for the Central District, a seat vacated by William M. Byrne, Jr. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 10, 1999, and received her commission on November 15, 1999.

[dutch508]

I'd tell them to go **** themselves, but they prob'ly already are.

[cavegal]

BUSY DAY FOR MARXISTS! 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-halt-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement/

RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling issued Tuesday was wi

[TheSarge]

BUSY DAY FOR MARXISTS! 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-halt-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement/

They are trying to do everything they can to screw this country up before they lose power and control in 3 weeks!

[ColonialMarine0431]

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights

Everyone who joins the Military knows that his/her Constitutional rights are limited. For example, one cannot attend a political rally in full uniform and stand on the podium and give a speach. That's a violation of the UCMJ. And since when was serving a Constitutional right?

[true_blood]

She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too??

[5412]

She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too??

Hi,

I don't think the timing of this will do the democrats one bit of good.  Hopefully the justice department will appeal as the Chief of Staff is conducting a research project on the effects of removing the provision.  It is due in December.  The fact this happened right before the election is not good for the libs.

regards,
5412

[JLO]

Everyone who joins the Military knows that his/her Constitutional rights are limited. For example, one cannot attend a political rally in full uniform and stand on the podium and give a speach. That's a violation of the UCMJ. And since when was serving a Constitutional right?

Sounds like Kerry...eh?

Be careful posting.  Lots of misfits around, tonight.

[NHSparky]

Everyone who joins the Military knows that his/her Constitutional rights are limited. For example, one cannot attend a political rally in full uniform and stand on the podium and give a speach. That's a violation of the UCMJ. And since when was serving a Constitutional right?

Actually, it's more specifically spelled out in the various service regs, although prosecution could be effected under either Article 92 or Article 134.

It's NEVER been one, but don't let that stop them.../sarc

[5412]

Actually, it's more specifically spelled out in the various service regs, although prosecution could be effected under either Article 92 or Article 134.

It's NEVER been one, but don't let that stop them.../sarc

Hi,

My son graduated second in his class at the Naval Academy many years ago.  When he resigned his commission, one thing he mentioned was when the heck is the American public going to realize the military is not a social experiment?  I can't imagine serving on a submarine with a person who everyone knows is gay.  I understand the enlisted men literally share bunks, you get off duty you go wake your replacement, he gets out of the bunk and you climb in.  Nuff said!  UGH!

regards,
54`12

[JohnnyReb]

She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too??

That was my very first thought.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Have to agree with 5412, I don't think the timing on this is all that helpful to the Dems; the gay vote was pretty much in the bag (Or sack...) for them already and this will piss off a lot of middle of the road people who otherwise might have stayed home. 

[true_blood]

Have to agree with 5412, I don't think the timing on this is all that helpful to the Dems; the gay vote was pretty much in the bag (Or sack...) for them already and this will piss off a lot of middle of the road people who otherwise might have stayed home. 

I agree as well. I hope it helps destroy the demosocialists even more!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Since military personnel now enjoy full constitutional rights (including those that don't exist, apparently) does that mean we are free to invoke our 1st Amendment rights to openly speak our minds about how we feel about our CinC?

[thundley4]

Since military personnel now enjoy full constitutional rights (including those that don't exist, apparently) does that mean we are free to invoke our 1st Amendment rights to openly speak our minds about how we feel about our CinC?

Yes, it does,























as long as you speak only of his beauty, kindness and great leadership skills. 

[Wretched Excess]

can the judiciary issue valid orders directly to the united states armed forces?  wouldn't, in effect, the judiciary have to order the executive branch to order the department of defense to comply?  could a federal judge, or, for the sake of argument, the SCOTUS, order the marines out of afghanistan?

[docstew]

can the judiciary issue valid orders directly to the united states armed forces?  wouldn't, in effect, the judiciary have to order the executive branch to order the department of defense to comply?  could a federal judge, or, for the sake of argument, the SCOTUS, order the marines out of afghanistan?

That is a very good point.  This judge has no command authority over anyone in the DoD, yet is giving policy.  The DoD needs to appeal on the grounds that it is a violation of the Constitution for this judge to issue those orders.

[thundley4]

That is a very good point.  This judge has no command authority over anyone in the DoD, yet is giving policy.  The DoD needs to appeal on the grounds that it is a violation of the Constitution for this judge to issue those orders.

However, since DADT was a law passed by congress, isn't it within the purview of the courts to determine it's constitutionality? OTOH, couldn't the DOD institute it's own policy of DADT that would prevent any court interference?

[Wretched Excess]

However, since DADT was a law passed by congress, isn't it within the purview of the courts to determine it's constitutionality? OTOH, couldn't the DOD institute it's own policy of DADT that would prevent any court interference?

it seems to me that declaring the law unconstitutional is very different from ordering the military to "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

it may ultimately accomplish the same thing, but they are very different actions.  

[Wretched Excess]

However, since DADT was a law passed by congress, isn't it within the purview of the courts to determine it's constitutionality? OTOH, couldn't the DOD institute it's own policy of DADT that would prevent any court interference?

I thought DADT was a policy of the clinton administration.

[thundley4]

I thought DADT was a policy of the clinton administration.

It was a law passed by congress under Bill Clinton. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html

Can you imagine the outcry from Teh Gheys if a flamer was captured and knowingly tortured as a gay by an Islamic militant in Afghanistan?

[Wretched Excess]

It was a law passed by congress under Bill Clinton. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html

Can you imagine the outcry from Teh Gheys if a flamer was captured and knowingly tortured as a gay by an Islamic militant in Afghanistan?

I understand that a law was passed by congress that implemented the presidential directive.  but I think we are having a "chicken or the egg" conversation.

[thundley4]

I understand that a law was passed by congress that implemented the presidential directive.  but I think we are having a "chicken or the egg" conversation.

Even though this comes from wikipedia, it seems that DADT is a presidential directive that sort of over rode an outright ban.

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[9] At the time, per Reagan's Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.[9][10] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual servicemembers.[11]

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[10] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[12] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[10] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

The full name of the policy at the time was "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue." "Don’t Ask" mandates that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. "Don’t Tell" states that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. "Don’t Pursue" establishes what is minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. "Don’t Harass" was added to the policy later. It ensures that the military will not allow harassment or violence against servicemembers for any reason.[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell#History

I still think the left is out to undermine the defense capabilities of the US.