The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on October 12, 2010, 02:40:00 PM
-
(http://tri.army.mil/lc/cj/cjc/images/dod_clr.jpg)
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/
-
Isn't there supposed to be an appeal?
This should go over real well . . . :censored: :banghead:
-
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.
-
I'd tell them to go **** themselves, but they prob'ly already are.
-
BUSY DAY FOR MARXISTS! :banghead:
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
-
BUSY DAY FOR MARXISTS! :banghead:
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!
-
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?
-
She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too?? :bird: :censored:
-
She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too?? :bird: :censored:
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
She's from Commiefornia and was appointed by Klintoon.
Maybe she's teh ghey too?? :bird: :censored:
That was my very first thought.
-
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.
-
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! :evillaugh:
-
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?
-
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. :whatever:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Even though this comes from wikipedia, it seems that DADT is a presidential directive that sort of over rode an outright ban.
I still think the left is out to undermine the defense capabilities of the US.
I'm getting a bit twisted into knots by the nuances of this thing, myself. there's never a constitutional law expert around when you need one, is there? :whatever: but honestly, how often does that really happen? :-)
-
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.
I get what you're saying we and I agree. This is a case of the judicial over stepping its boundaries. Just like the judge that ordered the AF flight nurse back to active duty.
IMHO things like this will backfire on the libs and the activist judges. There's nothing that says that the military can't punish these same soldiers for lying on official doccuments and either courts martial them or kick them out with a dishonerable.
-
It was a law passed by congress under Bill Clinton. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html
Why am I not surprised here? :banghead:
-
so what exactly does this do? They're allowed out of the closet? They can now "swish" in uniform, hit on people? Special rights?
-
so what exactly does this do? They're allowed out of the closet? They can now "swish" in uniform, hit on people? Special rights?
They can't be kicked out for lying on their enlistment papers if this ruling is allowed to stand.
The rest is yet to be seen. If DADT is repealed...it will be a nightmare of giant proportions for the DoD.
Call it the law of unintended consequences.
-
They can't be kicked out for lying on their enlistment papers if this ruling is allowed to stand.
The rest is yet to be seen. If DADT is repealed...it will be a nightmare of giant proportions for the DoD.
Call it the law of unintended consequences.
Lying on the enlistment forms? Yeah- they can be disiplined for it.
Not sure about being kicked out, though.
-
Lying on the enlistment forms? Yeah- they can be disiplined for it.
Not sure about being kicked out, though.
Wouldn't it fall under fraudulent enlistment?
-
Wouldn't it fall under fraudulent enlistment?
Yes, it would. However, that doesn't mean an automatic discharge, so to speak.
-
If they lie then they should be kicked out but it is a damn if you do damned if you don't situation
-
I talked to a friend of mine that is a lawyer during happy hour. he's not a constitutional expert, but he explained what he knew about this ruling. there are two separate issues here; one is that the judge overturned the DADT law. we all disagree with that, but at least it was within the judge's constitutional scope. then she issued an injunction barring the DoD from enforcing any part of DADT in any way. THAT, my friends, is beyond her constitutional authority.
the whole thing will be appealed, but the obamites won't touch it until after the midterms; they can't afford to piss off their base any more than they already are.
and so, the armed forces of the united states of america are, during a time of war, in limbo for a few weeks.
the cowards.
-
Yes, it would. However, that doesn't mean an automatic discharge, so to speak.
If what they were lying about would have made them ineligible for enlistment is sure would. Saw lots of entry-level shit that recruits copped to at MOT (moment of truth.)
-
They can't be kicked out for lying on their enlistment papers if this ruling is allowed to stand.
The rest is yet to be seen. If DADT is repealed...it will be a nightmare of giant proportions for the DoD.
Call it the law of unintended consequences.
Nope. The left wants nothing more than to have US military become a cluster**** of nightmare proportions.
-
Nope. The left wants nothing more than to have US military become a cluster**** of nightmare proportions.
Yup because right on the heels of a repeal of DADT...there will be a call to force the military to recognize gay marriages and civil unions as well.
Which will burden the DoD budget even more and force the SecDef to divert more funds away from war fighting stuff towards benefits for all of these newly added "marriages".
-
Yup because right on the heels of a repeal of DADT...there will be a call to force the military to recognize gay marriages and civil unions as well.
Which will burden the DoD budget even more and force the SecDef to divert more funds away from war fighting stuff towards benefits for all of these newly added "marriages".
And then there's the exorbitant medical costs associated with AIDS. It's already bad enough because of the immorality of certain military people. (Not talking about the gay ones, either)
-
Kinda wish somone would make like Andrew Jackson and start ignoring these judges.
-
Kinda wish somone would make like Andrew Jackson and start ignoring these judges.
Did you know that every time you post a comment you look like a complete fool?
-
Did you know that every time you post a comment you look like a complete fool?
Hey now, that's the first statement he's made that I could sorta agree with....and I think the current Marine Corps Commandant did.
-
Hey now, that's the first statement he's made that I could sorta agree with....and I think the current Marine Corps Commandant did.
Well, it remains to be seen precisely what all this means, but I think it's an issue that must be addressed and not to be ignored.
When you've got senior officers that have jumped on the Obama bandwagon and essentially threatened Soldiers with expulsion for not embracing the homos and rug munchers, any "order" issued by a judge has to be addressed.
Andrew Jackson has been dead a long time. I'd like to say that the cronyism he brought to bear died with him, but that's not the case.
Besides, the poster is an idiot racist. That nullifies any halfway intelligible comment he might've made.
-
Kinda wish somone would make like Andrew Jackson and start ignoring these judges.
That had some real ugly consequences at the time, genocidal ugly as a matter of fact. It's a first-class ticket on an express train to a place we don't want to go.
-
Kinda wish somone would make like Andrew Jackson and start ignoring these judges.
Yeah, let's just ignore whichever branch of the government pisses us off at any given moment or which doesn't follow our agendas--what a wonderful ****ing idea!
Asshat. I see you're not long for this place.
-
I am surprised. I didn't think the obamites in the DoJ would budge until after the midterms.
U.S. appeals order lifting 'don't ask, don't tell' policy
Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration has filed a request with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a lower court injunction stopping the military policy regarding openly gay troops serving.
Late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California denied the government's request for an emergency stay of her order barring the military from expelling openly gay service members.
That ruling came as the Pentagon has begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.
The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.
More (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/pentagon.gays.recruiting/?hpt=T1)
-
I am surprised. I didn't think the obamites in the DoJ would budge until after the midterms.
I'm surprised that they are doing it before the elections also, but not so much by the fact that they are appealing the ruling. Most of the time the DOJ will appeal rulings that go against federal laws.(even this criminal one)
-
I'm surprised that they are doing it before the elections also, but not so much by the fact that they are appealing the ruling. Most of the time the DOJ will appeal rulings that go against federal laws.(even this criminal one)
that's a normal DoJ, not one that has become a functioning arm of the "re-elect obama campaign".
-
that's a normal DoJ, not one that has become a functioning arm of the "re-elect obama campaign".
Not to mention a racist one that drops cases that are already won.
-
even stranger still; the ninth circuit granted the administration's request for an emergency stay of the judge's injunction. so, DADT is in force once again, at least until the 9th circuit can decide if they want to issue a longer stay that will remain in effect until they can decide to hear the entire case.
tell me this sh*t isn't entirely too complicated.
NYT link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/21recruit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
-
even stranger still; the ninth circuit granted the administration's request for an emergency stay of the judge's injunction. so, DADT is in force once again, at least until the 9th circuit can decide if they want to issue a longer stay that will remain in effect until they can decide to hear the entire case.
tell me this sh*t isn't entirely too complicated.
NYT link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/21recruit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Maybe their goal is to make is so messed up that people just say :censored: it and let the queers in. Most of the straights will leave and we'll be left with this:
(http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/gay_army.jpg)
-
Maybe their goal is to make is so messed up that people just say :censored: it and let the queers in. Most of the straights will leave and we'll be left with this:
(http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/gay_army.jpg)
Actually, I don't see that happening at all. I think that after an "adjustment period," the military will continue doing what it's always done - the mission - with the faggots and the rug munchers right alongside.
Our entire culture has become far more accommodating and accepting of this disgusting lifestyle than I can understand and accept - but I am not blind to what has happened over the years.
Granted, some will leave military service because they can't tolerate the declared queers. But most will stay because it will become their "duty" to accept them in the ranks.
-
Actually, I don't see that happening at all. I think that after an "adjustment period," the military will continue doing what it's always done - the mission - with the faggots and the rug munchers right alongside.
Our entire culture has become far more accommodating and accepting of this disgusting lifestyle than I can understand and accept - but I am not blind to what has happened over the years.
Granted, some will leave military service because they can't tolerate the declared queers. But most will stay because it will become their "duty" to accept them in the ranks.
You might be right, but I think there may be a few more cases of homos being beaten if they are too "flamboyant".
-
You might be right, but I think there may be a few more cases of homos being beaten if they are too "flamboyant".
No doubt some of that will happen. And the perps will be submitted to SEVERE UCMJ action, up to and including hard time, DDs, and similar punishments.
It's pretty clear which direction DoD is going in -- protect the faggots at all costs. Drum out those who have a problem with the new "policy" and rule through intimidation and fear.
The faggots have ultimately succeeded in forcing the rest of the military to accept their abnormal, disgusting lifestyle.
I am glad I'm retired and while I'm subject to be recalled, there ain't no way in hell the Army wants an old, broken down, fat, euphonium player any more.
-
Maybe their goal is to make is so messed up that people just say :censored: it and let the queers in. Most of the straights will leave and we'll be left with this:
(http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/gay_army.jpg)
I am convinced it's all part of the imposter's plan as well.
-
Maybe their goal is to make is so messed up that people just say :censored: it and let the queers in. Most of the straights will leave and we'll be left with this:
(http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/gay_army.jpg)
I object to this poster...
because the caption would be much funnier if it said "fill a hole in the ranks"