"Don't ask, don't tell" ruled unconstitutional

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's about time.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/don...ex.html?hpt=T2

Obama promised to fix this but hasn't had the guts yet. Good for Judge Phillips.

[byu71]

It's about time.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/don...ex.html?hpt=T2

Obama promised to fix this but hasn't had the guts yet. Good for Judge Phillips.

Why do we ever debate this stuff, pass laws, ask experts what they think, et. all. Seems like a waste of time.

Let's just go to some judge and see what he thinks.

[wuapinmon]

Why do we ever debate this stuff, pass laws, ask experts what they think, et. all. Seems like a waste of time.

Let's just go to some judge and see what he thinks.

If only we had some kind of over-arching set of laws that we could let judges refer to to see what our will was....

[Moliere]

It's about time.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/don...ex.html?hpt=T2

Obama promised to fix this but hasn't had the guts yet. Good for Judge Phillips.

That's good news. I know one special forces officer who recently served in Iraq and he was openly for the repeal of this policy.

Hopefully at some point we give women the same opportunities to serve in the military as we do the men.

[byu71]

If only we had some kind of over-arching set of laws that we could let judges refer to to see what our will was....

I kinda get what you are trying to say, I think. I don't want to come back at you with a sarcastic remark though, because then I would look silly if I didn't get what you were trying to say.

[mUUser]

...like legalizing gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. This rolling snowball can't be stopped. Patience is the order of the day for those in favor of full gay rights.

[All-American]

Frankly, I'm for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", but I hope that the authority that undoes the law is a little bit greater than that of a district judge in California. Hopefully, the defendants let this one go up to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, all you need to do is file a similar lawsuit in a very conservative district to get somebody to rule that the policy IS constitutional.

[All-American]

Hmm. The ruling itself seems a little strange. The judge says that the policy violates the first and fifth amendment rights of those in the military:

"the act's restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals."

If these are the grounds on which her ruling is based, there's a good argument to be made in the appellate court.

[Jacob]

Hmm. The ruling itself seems a little strange. The judge says that the policy violates the first and fifth amendment rights of those in the military:

"the act's restrictions on speech not only are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government's substantial interests, but also actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals."

If these are the grounds on which her ruling is based, there's a good argument to be made in the appellate court.

That is very strange. A judge has decided that a military policy "impedes military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals?" What an absurd thing for a judge to think he is competent to determine. And more competent than the people actually in charge of making such decisions.

[byu71]

That is very strange. A judge has decided that a military policy "impedes military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals?" What an absurd thing for a judge to think he is competent to determine. And more competent than the people actually in charge of making such decisions.

That was my sarcastic point earlier. I don't trust these guys to decide traffic ticket violations let alone the efficiency of the military. I couldn't care less if they have "don't tell" or not in the military as long as the military makes the decision.

Remember what these guys chief goal is. There is a reason the military was integrated and worked long before it did in society in general. These guys don't sit on their asses and then go have coffee or tea and discuss what is good and what is bad. They kill people and get killed. They should decide what is most efficient.

I believe in the civilian authority over the military to tell them when to fight and when not to, but after that stay the hell out of their way.

[All-American]

That is very strange. A judge has decided that a military policy "impedes military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals?" What an absurd thing for a judge to think he is competent to determine. And more competent than the people actually in charge of making such decisions.

First, it's a she, not a he. Judge Virginia Phillips.

Second, concededly, it is often the role of the judge to rule on matters on which she (or he) is not necessarily an expert. That much is apparent enough. Nevertheless, when the outcome of a case rides on a weighing of interests, as this case apparently did, even if a judge's own personal opinion overwhelmingly favors one side, she (or he) ought to at least acknowledge that the question is still open.

[DU Ute]

That is very strange. A judge has decided that a military policy "impedes military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals?" What an absurd thing for a judge to think he is competent to determine. And more competent than the people actually in charge of making such decisions.

There are plenty of people making these decisions who feel the same way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is very strange. A judge has decided that a military policy "impedes military readiness and unit cohesion rather than further these goals?" What an absurd thing for a judge to think he is competent to determine. And more competent than the people actually in charge of making such decisions.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants to scrap it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us...tary.html?_r=1

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... Admiral Mullen said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”

I can understand arguments against gay marriage. I have never understood the logic behind don't ask, don't tell. It just seems outrageous. I recall last year reading about a woman working on a military base in Kansas. Cops were called to her neighborhood regarding a break-in and went in her apartment by mistake (they had the wrong address). While in her apartment, they noticed some photos of her with another woman. They also noticed that she was in the military. The reported her to her base commander and she was fired/discharged. With apologies to SU, that makes my blood boil. I can't fathom how anyone would be comfortable living in a society that endorses that kind of discrimination.