Federal Judge Rules DADT Unconstitutional

Filed in National by on September 9, 2010

Big news from California:

A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

Phillips said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the U.S. Department of Justice, which defended “don’t ask, don’t tell” during a two-week trial in Riverside, will have an opportunity to appeal that decision.

Let’s hope the DOJ doesn’t appeal. Either way, I think this ads some urgency to the DADT repeal waiting for Senate approval.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. a. price says:

    hopefully this gets to the senate after the election. Otherwise the conservadems will side with the Teaparty in order ot keep their jobs.
    Does anyone else hope that once the dems, who wussed their way into this mess will grow a pair after their re-election doesnt matter anymore?
    how great would it be to end DATA, get a public option, and break the backs of the banks all after nov 2?

  2. anon says:

    Does anybody else get the impression that right before an election there is always some court decision that drives social conservative fundraising and GOTV? I’ll have to research this…

  3. a. price says:

    let em try.
    The country as a whole wants it’s citizens to be able to serve. The army kicked out most of it’s translators because of who they love and now we are lacking soldiers who speak the native languages in Afghanistan.
    Let Newt Gingrich oppose a general who has actually served his country. Let St Sarah support the notion that some qualified person who may be protecting her son, should lose his job because of “how he is watching Trap’s back” (or whatever the kid’s name is)
    Im glad this happened with a judge and as a Constitutional issue, rather than a presidential dictate. The constitutionality of an executive order would have been challenged, the incoming Teaparty congress would have used it to try and impeach Obama (although they will use something else… your dream will come true a1, delcrat)
    This way, they Conservatives again have to defend their “i only love the Constitution when i can use it to get more money/power” position.

  4. delacrat says:

    “The country as a whole wants it’s citizens to be able to serve.”

    It’s not true that the country as a whole wants to “serve”, a euphemism for “kill brown foreigners”.

    “The army kicked out most of it’s translators because of who they love and now we are lacking soldiers who speak the native languages in Afghanistan.”

    Afghanistan does not need more translators. Afghanistan needs us to stop killing them and get out.

  5. Geezer says:

    I just love to see how delacrat — what’s that crat stand for again? — and anonone will take any post at all and turn it into an attack on Obama. It’s soooo similar to what conservatives do that it’s almost impossible to tell the difference.

    Hint, fellas: If you NEVER have a good word to say about him, you’re just as wrong as a conservative, even if the reason is different.

  6. a. price says:

    You know damn well that is not what i meant. Why do you always feel the need to add Left Wingnut to the discussion. Leftwingnuttery bugs me more than RightWingnuttery.
    They kick out gay national guardsmen too. haven’t you said you were in the military? (thank you for your service) are you alleging that everyone who joins the armed services does so just to commit genocide? (screw you for your prejudice)
    If i say Hamas 3 times will you disappear like Beatlejuice?

  7. delacrat says:

    a. price,

    You have not explained why gay rights must include killing brown foreigners and a chance for a plot in Arlington, along with worthwhile objectives, such as marriage, parental and adoption rights?

  8. a. price says:

    One day, you are raging that free speech should include hate demonstrations and burning books ( i agree it is protected and should be allowed… although it is not a violation of free speech to try and talk someone out of doing something) The next you are picking and choosing what rights should be given to people.

    I also never said “killing brown foreigners” that is your talking point, not mine. You are the one who is unable to see past people’s skin color. You are the worst type of racist. YOu assume that because someone is different, their intentions must be pure and any conflict we have is just a misunderstanding. You deny that people who are different are capable of being dangerous because they are “just poor sand people”. What a condescending pompous ass you are.

    Also, why are you against gays in the military? or are you against American’s right to join the military altogether? tell us, delcrat… what freedoms should be thrown out to fit your extreme idea of what America should be? We already know you want the president to have absolute power over congress…… if the congress is conservative and the president is liberal. I bet you bitched and moaned about GWB and his power…. because Teabag logic always revolves around “Im right and everyone else is evil”

    You are a joke; a pathetic wingnut with a closed mind who only sees the world in black and white, totally unable and unwilling to understand complex dilemmas and multiple points of view. If you dont like it, it is EVIL!!!!!

    Im almost suspicious you are Jason, or Liberalgeek in disguise and you make up this insane BS just to keep the discussion lively.

  9. anonone says:

    Hint, Geezer: Any good that Obomba is doing is far out weighed by the bad.

    You can sing the praises of a United States President who is establishing and institutionalizing police state powers, but don’t expect others to sing in that choir.

  10. liberalgeek says:

    Some day, I hope to be able to harness crazy enough to be able to speak in tongues like Delacrat. Until then, we will have to suffer through the real thing and hope that some day there will be a Colbert for the crazy left.

  11. Geezer says:

    You won’t find any instances of me singing his praises. You won’t find any instances of knee-jerk reactions or wild-swinging bullshit to take swipes at him, either.

    It’s your credibility, and it was yours to fritter away. Congratulations on having done so. If nothing he does is right, we have no need to read anything you say — we already know ahead of time what you think. Just like a conservative.

    The opposite of mindless conservatism is not mindless liberalism.

  12. anonone says:

    Sure, Geezer, like who else is going to write about stuff like this here? You? Did the recent court decision about state secrets get a mention by anybody else here? Did you mention it? No and no. But we have a President who makes a book burning by a nutcase a national issue while he covers up for war crimes and everybody wants to talk about the book burning.

    You’re a smart guy, you tell me which is more important.

  13. anonone says:

    By the way, it is the courts, not Obomba, that is driving true equal rights for gays. You wouldn’t know it from anything written here, but DADT repeal is close to dying in the Senate this year.

  14. a. price says:

    no one has credited Obama.
    I would also like to educate you how our system works…. since you dont seem to know.
    The only way the senate can override an “unconstitutional” ruling by the courts is to change the Constitution. now, if LeaftyBags like you allow the Right wing to totally take over, we may just see that…. we will also see you thrown in jail for sedition. your dream will cone true. you will finally be persecuted. YAY!

  15. I’m not sure where you’re getting the information that the DADT repeal is close to dying. It’s included in the defense authorization bill that supposed to get voted on in September.

  16. anonone says:

    See this:

    http://www.sldn.org/pages/repeal-on-the-line

    If they can’t pass the defense bill with DADT repeal, they might take it out so that they can pass the defense bill and move on to other bills.

  17. Geezer says:

    “Did the recent court decision about state secrets get a mention by anybody else here? Did you mention it? No and no.”

    I don’t have to. I read Glenn Greenwald, who is a lot more credible on all these issues that either you or I, and if I want the spittle-flecked version I go to Fire Dog Lake. See, this is DELAWARE Liberal, so I don’t feel the need to build in a left-wing wallow over in the corner.

  18. anonone says:

    Fine, Geezer, but I can’t understand why you get so upset when I write about the erosion of civil liberties and freedom by the executive branch. That is a huge issue for me.

    You may not think it is important that the government is buying books in order to destroy them and censor the content, but I do. So we’re different. I don’t know why you have such a problem with that.

    In regards to this being DELAWARE Liberal, many of the topics that I raise were subjects of almost daily posts when Bush was the President. They have strangely disappeared since Obama became President and not because the issues have changed or gone away.

    Anyway, I think we can all celebrate the court’s decision on DADT. I don’t want to comment on this thread about anything else anymore.

  19. MJ says:

    As a LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE, I enlisted. I was proud to serve my country. And for the record, I OPPOSED the Viet Nam war (yeah, I’m that old) and the war in Iraq.

  20. anonone says:

    So, MJ, do you think Holder and Obama will appeal the decision?

  21. MJ says:

    I have no idea. They may wait until after the election to make that decision. My guess is that the 9th Circuit (or the judge herself) will issue a stay of the order pending appeal.

  22. anonone says:

    It would be nice if they did what Schwarzenegger and Brown did in CA. I think that if Holder and Obama refuse to appeal it, it becomes law. I don’t know anybody else that has standing to appeal it or than the Feds.

  23. Another activist judge perverting the law to serve his left wing agenda.

  24. MJ says:

    Get over it David. I am so sick and tired of yours and the rightwing/teabagging asshats who complain about “activist judges.” First off, the judge is a woman, not a man. Why is she a leftist? Because she got her JD from Berkeley? More of an education than you have from saving all of those Fruit Loops box tops you and your ilk trade in for diplomas.

    Thank G-D we have judges who use their brains instead of their politics to issue rulings like this. If it weren’t for “activist judges,” you’d still be sitting at the back of the bus.

    Now go whack off with Urkel and leave us alone.