[Nuclear1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/dadt-repeal-fails_n_794626.html

WASHINGTON -- A major defense authorization bill carrying the repeal of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law was blocked on Thursday by Senate Republicans and one Senate Democrat after negotiations between the parties failed. A number of moderate Republicans who said they supported a repeal, including Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voted to filibuster the measure. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined their efforts.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the prime negotiating partner of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's, voted to bring the bill forward but only after it was clear that the 60 needed to end a filibuster would not be achieved. Her vote came after she angrily roamed the Senate floor, rolling up text of the legislation and waving it around, smacking it on Sen. Dick Durbin's desk and hitting him on the arm with it. The final tally was 57 Senators in favor of moving forward, 40 opposed.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a lead proponent of repeal, promised after the vote to introduce stand-alone legislation quickly to repeal the ban. "Reid [told Lieberman] he would bring it up by the end of lame duck," a Reid aide said. "That is all that I know right now. And Reid will cosponsor it."

Alright, I've had it.

**** Congress, **** the Republicans, **** the Democrats who voted against this...just **** them all.

Evil, filthy thugs.  All of them.  

Any ONE of these bastards ever claims again that they support the troops...we're going to hold this to their ****ing face and say "NO YOU DON'T."

[iamzack]

-.-

[Mongoose]

Unfortunately, this doesn't really surprise me.  Congress sucks ass in all respects right now.

[Grizzly]

I get the nagging feeling that it did so ever since Obama was elected.

"Sure, we support healthcare reform, but can we get a new bridge built in our state?"

[Flipside]

This was my concern when they stated they wanted to leave it to congress rather than the courts.

[Pred the Penguin]

This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...

[Titan]

This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...

wha..? I'm confused. Isn't that the point (though now with that... erm, wording)

[Pred the Penguin]

Maybe I did word it wrong.
If that's the case, ignore me if you haven't already.

[Nemesis6]

Obama is responsible for this actually. When a supreme court judge labelled DADT unconstitutional and ordered the military not to enforce it, Obama's administration defended DADT in court, likening gay marriage to incest, pointing out that we don't recognize that.

[Bearstrike]

This case was doomed from the beginning.
Too many fags in America...

Touche.

[NGTM-1R]

The wound healed guys, take the band-aid off already.

[MP-Ryan]

To paraphrase from Robin Williams, speaking about the origins of the United States:

[...] people so uptight the English kicked them out [...]

Put it back to the courts and pray some rationality comes out of it, because it is rather clear that Congress have their collective heads in their collective asses at present.

[BrotherBryon]

Put it back to the courts and pray some rationality comes out of it, because it is rather clear that Congress have their collective heads in their collective asses at present.

Do pray tell when they didn't have their collective heads in their collective asses.

[karajorma]

Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. 

[Herra Tohtori]

Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?

Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate...

[Nuclear1]

Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?

Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate...

Alright, let me break it down.

1) A Federal District court found DADT unconstitutional and ordered an injunction for the military to stop discharging homosexuals.
2) The Department of Justice essentially halted the injunction, which means there's not really an option in the courts to repeal it based on it's unconstitutionality.
3) Congress, on the other hand, can repeal it, since it was an act of Congress that first implemented DADT.  They have the power to repeal one of their own pieces of legislation.

So yeah, a court DID find it unconstitutional, but a higher court essentially blocked the ruling.  That's why Congress is necessary.

It's not really an issue of the branches stepping into each other's territories, it's just another viable option where one fell apart.

[NGTM-1R]

Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not?

It's not a question of constitutionality as it's been put before Congress. The Republican Party, and others, have embraced the myth this is about armed forces readiness. Since Congress pays for the military, Congress gets powers over the military.

[Nuclear1]

Also, this:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[Hades]

Congress hates gays cause they want to be the only people ****ing you in the arse. 

[Herra Tohtori]

Isn't it the business of the judiciary branch (read: courts) to decide if something is unconstitutional or not? What business does the Congress have in this to begin with, unless they amend the constitution to allow the discrimination against openly homosexuals?

Seriously guys, your government should really keep the executive, legislative and judiciary branches separate...

Alright, let me break it down.

1) A Federal District court found DADT unconstitutional and ordered an injunction for the military to stop discharging homosexuals.
2) The Department of Justice essentially halted the injunction, which means there's not really an option in the courts to repeal it based on it's unconstitutionality.
3) Congress, on the other hand, can repeal it, since it was an act of Congress that first implemented DADT.  They have the power to repeal one of their own pieces of legislation.

So yeah, a court DID find it unconstitutional, but a higher court essentially blocked the ruling.  That's why Congress is necessary.

It's not really an issue of the branches stepping into each other's territories, it's just another viable option where one fell apart.

Urgh, how convoluted.

So let's see if I got it straight this time - the Congress originally introduced DADT policy, because by constitution they have the power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

A Federal District found this to be in contradiction with the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10).

Department of Justice repealed their decision and put it back to Congress.


So, I guess in its core it's a question of whether the original constitution (which grants the Congress the power to make the rules for armed forces) or the amendments which secure the rights of minorities (among others things).

One has to ask what the point of the amendments is if they can just be ignored when it suits the people making the decisions...