[Flipside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11589638

DADT reinstated by appeal judge.

Now, I'm not commenting on the legal aspects of all this, but there are some aspects of it from a Political point of view that do worry me:

President Barack Obama and some top military leaders have called for ending the ban, but Mr Obama believes it should be done through legislation, rather than court action.

That, to me, sounds like an excuse to stretch it out until it's someone elses problem, we all know that legislation will take forever, if at all, and the odds of it being removed become less and less as far right elements become more and more prominent.

Am I reading this wrong, or is this simply an attempt to avoid the public learning how many of those 'damn dirty homos' are actually out there fighting and dying for the sake of the country? Would Obamas popularity (or what remains of it) take a hit if it this were revealed?

It's always struck me as kind of odd that people out there defending their country have more to worry about from the extremists back home than they have from the ones shooting at them...

Before this starts, I know this is going to be a hot topic, so lets try and approach it like adults please.

[Bobboau]

seeing as one of the 'far right elements' main battle cries is 'liberal activist judges legislating from the bench' he's probably just trying to have this not turn into a huge motivator for said right leaning elements a month before a mid term election that his party is probably not going to do so well in.

you are aware there is a mid term election in 2 weeks, right?

[NGTM-1R]

I don't believe Obama has any intention to stretch this out until it becomes someone else's problem and genuinely wants to end it. I simply think he wants to end it in a way that's more controllable than a federal court ruling. While simple and cleanly cutting, a court ruling would result in a large number of relevant rules needing to be rewritten at once, nor does it carry the moral force of legislation which at least suggests a majority.

DADT was always a patch, an attempt to buy time, rather than a solution. The strange thing is that it lasted this long.

[Flipside]

you are aware there is a mid term election in 2 weeks, right?

Yes, I was, that's why I was wondering about the timing of it all. It may not simply be a question of timing on the part of the Government, but also on the part of the activists, that's why I'm not really trying to make judgements and asking what the actual situation is. The thing that concerns me is that if it is left to legislation, and the Far Right gains a great deal of influence in 2 weeks, that is going to have an impact on the likelihood of such a ruling being made?

While simple and cleanly cutting, a court ruling would result in a large number of relevant rules needing to be rewritten at once, nor does it carry the moral force of legislation which at least suggests a majority.

That makes sense, I suppose if you want to stamp on something, you want to make sure it stays stamped, a kind of 'rubber-stamped stamp' as it were. I suppose the plus side is that the appeal judge has not stated that the ruling is invalid, merely allowed for the delay of its enforcement, I just hope that is enough to make those in power realise that it is over, whether they like it or not.

Edit: I will add though that I was serious about the concerns of how the public will react to learning the numbers of gay troops serving, which, to a degree, explains Governments reticence to reveal it, you can lose your life in Afghanistan by being shot, you can lose your livelihood by being openly gay, there's something that just strikes me as wierd about that.

[Bobboau]

it may also be a way for Obama to say "you lazy SOBs had better ****ing get out and vote for us or this thing is going no where"

[Kazan]

it's standard practice for all administrations to defend all laws in court.. whether or not they agree with them.  sorta a gentlemen's agreement between presidents not to undermine each other by selectively defending legislation.

and "activist judge"-crying morons can go **** themselves and their unamerican bull****.

[SpardaSon21]

it's standard practice for all administrations to defend all laws in court.. whether or not they agree with them.  sorta a gentlemen's agreement between presidents not to undermine each other by selectively defending legislation.

and "activist judge"-crying morons can go **** themselves and their unamerican bull****.

Ever heard of Kelo vs. New London?  It was the activist liberal judges who said local governments can eminent domain your property and give it to private developers if that will increase tax revenue.  They completely re-wrote the relevant section of the Constitution which explicitly states "public use", not "public purpose" as the majority wrote in their opinion.  It was the four evil conservative, strict constructionist judges who dissented for preservation of private property rights.

[Kazan]

Ever heard of Kelo vs. New London?  It was the activist liberal judges ...

You're an idiot.  pretty much ANYONE who accuses someone of committing "judicial activism" short of ONE Texas Supreme Court Justice in ONE case is an idiot.


/she literally tried to write a new law from the bench related to abortion
//all the other accusations of "judicial activism" come down to "I disagree with this decision"
///for the record: I think Kelo was a poor precedent, but not legally incorrect.  the Court essentially punted the issue to legislature

[SpardaSon21]

Not legally incorrect?  I'm pretty sure the Constitution mentions "public use" as a reason for eminent domain, not "public purpose" as was stated in the majority opinion.

[watsisname]

Just an FYI, calling people idiots doesn't make your claim seem any stronger.

[Nuclear1]

KAJSD:GlkH:DFLGKJHF:GLKf

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH

****

****

****

WHY COULDN'T THEY JUST LET IT DIE

[Goober5000]

and "activist judge"-crying morons can go **** themselves and their unamerican bull****.

You're an idiot.  pretty much ANYONE who accuses someone of committing "judicial activism" short of ONE Texas Supreme Court Justice in ONE case is an idiot.

Kazan, we've been down this road before.  Make your argument without making personal attacks, or you'll be monkeyed/banned/whatever the nearest admin feels like at the moment.


By the way, handing down a judicial decision reversing DADT in the face of significant public and political opposition is, by definition, activism.  Kelo v. New London was activism.  Brown v. Board of Ed. was activism.  Marbury v. Madison was activism.  The main question raised in this thread is whether the role of deciding DADT properly belongs to the legislature, which is a reasonable point of discussion.

[NGTM-1R]

By the way, handing down a judicial decision reversing DADT in the face of significant public and political opposition is, by definition, activism.

You're operating off a very different definition of activism.

[Goober5000]

Wikipedia: "Activism consists of intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument."  This correlates well with the commonly accepted connotation.

There is a significant portion of the population, however, which defines activism as any political action they disagree with.  I hope that's not what you meant.

[NGTM-1R]

One could argue every constitutional ruling ever was activism under that. The basic definition is inadequate to describe the purpose of it.

[karajorma]

Furthermore you can pretty much claim everyone in government voting against the status quo is an activist too in fact by that definition.

[The E]

Meanwhile, in the 50s:

[NGTM-1R]

The worst thing about those image for me is I have a book on the Buna campaign.

Mother****er has never even heard the damn battlefield described. Hieronymus Bosch would have been proud if he could have portrayed a tenth of what Buna looked like at the end.

[Kazan]

By the way, handing down a judicial decision reversing DADT in the face of significant public and political opposition is, by definition, activism.  

i don't know what strange definition of activism you have - but doing their job (that is interpreting the constitution) is not activism.  pullin things out of no where, saying they're in the constitution, and making a ruling based on that is.

Just because you disagree with the interpretation doesn't mean it doesn't have grounding in the constitution.

again the accusation of "judicial activism" comes down to "i disagree" not that "that is an unfounded conclusion".  I'm really tired of this crap - if you want to criticize a judicial decision then criticize it in a legitimate (aka reasoned) fashion, don't resort to terminology that accuses judges of being biased.

it's REALLY hilarious when the conservatives accuse judges of "judicial activism" in the federal judiciary.  the federal judiciary is 70% republic appointees,  SCOTUS is a 7-to-2 split (R-to-D).

[OllieG]

It's also worth pointing out that the Supreme Court (and in fact the Courts in general) are not inherently democratic institutions - this reality can be difficult to grasp for Americans who're used to government basing its decisions on public opinion.  The Courts are deliberately insulated from public opinion so they can protect and interpret the Constitution free of the influences that control the legislature.  The fact that there is "significant public and political opposition" is entirely meaningless in this and other Constitutional rulings.  In fact, you wouldn't want it any other way, since the primary purpose of insulating the Court from public opinion was to protect minorities from legislative abuse and provide a check on an overwhelming majority legislative Constitutional rights out of existence.

To claim that there's no such thing as Judicial Activism is a bit of a stretch though.  The Warren Court made some remarkable rulings that relied on "un-enumerated" rights that were "implied" by the rest of the Contitution (privacy, one-man-one-vote and very nearly the right to a subsistence income, see Dandridge v. Williams).  To apply Constitutional rights broadly and extend their protections to unprecedented circumstances in one thing, but to find entirely new rights in the Constitution is quite another.  Whether you agree with the Court's rulings in these un-enumerated rights cases or not, there's certainly an argument to be made that the Court manipulated the law to the point of activism (Justices and their clerks are very smart, and part of their trade is making the law say what they want it to say).  The actual ruling in the DADT case is an example of an un-enumerated right forming the basis for a judicial decision - this could very easily be considered judicial activism depending on one's understanding of Constitutional history, an argument that I believe we'll see reflected in the dissent when this case reaches SCOTUS.