Defending DADT to end DADT?

Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 08:25 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

5 Comments

RSS

Archives

You can't get there from here. Essentially, that's the explanation being given by the Obama administration for their multiple - and increasingly incoherent - decisions to appeal discharges under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.

Yesterday afternoon the Department of Justice appealed a September ruling ordering the Air Force to reinstate lesbian flight nurse Maj. Margaret Witt, who was suspended in 2004, and ultimately discharged under DADT.

Witt, a highly regarded flight nurse, was suspended in 2004 when the Air Force learned she had been in a long-term relationship. But she didn't go quietly, she sued to get her job back.

Her case was successful, with U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ruling in September that Witt's dismissal under the DADT policy violated her rights.

But yesterday the Justice Department filed the appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court, within hours of the deadline for doing so. The administration is also appealing a ruling from a federal judge in California that found the DADT policy unconstitutional.

Here's how White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained the administrations move:

"This filing in no way diminishes the President’s - and his Administration’s - firm commitment to achieving a legislative repeal of DADT this year."

Can there be anyone left in America who believes this? The administration actually sounds like it's saying please stop us before we act again. How can it claim to be committed to ending an odious policy whilst simultaneously defending it at every turn?

To underscore the absurd and growing dissonance, Witt will be able to rejoin the Air Force Reserve even as the government appeals the ruling that allows her to.

Either Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates the federal constitution or it doesn't. Apparently the Obama administration seems to think it can do both simultaneously.

It's quite clear the policy is effectively dead - there have been no discharges this month - but it looks like the administration is holding up the repeal by scheduling studies and mounting endless last minutes appeals.

Why defend it at all, at this point, after the court's finding that it is unconstitutional?

E-mail

5 Comments

See all comments

Pittsburghkid | Nov 25, 2010, 12:26 PM EST

Obama is trying to save his administration. After the worse mid-term election in 60 yrs, Obama has to come to the center. The Greatest Army in the History of the World operated fine with Homosexual exclusion. At the end of WWII, Russia had plans of overrunning Europe, but Patton's Army would not permit it. DADT was suppose to be the solution to the problem, but it was the nose of the Camel in the tent. The American Army has to go back to complete exclusion.

Report abuse

1IrishMedic | Nov 24, 2010, 08:37 PM EST

It is clear with idiots/homophobes such as Sen McCain and Sen McConnell, and the rest of the party called the GOP(Grand Old P----es) or the Party of NO that nothing will be done with DADT or anything else.

Report abuse

jimgordo1 | Nov 24, 2010, 04:12 PM EST

Ms. Gall --Why nitpick?? Who really cares whether it's 9 old men or 6 old men and 3 old women?? The point is, as Obama has repeatedly said "Congress put this thing in place and it's Congress' job to take it away." How many times have you heard objections that the courts have ruled Congressional acts unconsititutional? That 's what Obama is trying to do -- gt Congress to undo what it has done. That is, if we can ever get the Republicans to stop being the "Party of NO."

Report abuse

Ms.Gail | Nov 24, 2010, 12:04 PM EST

@remitromjr, that would be 6 old men and 3 old women

Report abuse

REMITROMJR | Nov 24, 2010, 10:11 AM EST

"Can there be anyone left in America who believes this?" Yes, I do, for one. No one wants such a major policy decision to be made by unelected judges. Until DADT can be repealed legislatively, it is better for the country to continue the current policy, especially in a time when combat is taking place, rather than have a decision imposed on the populace by (eventually) nine unelected old men.

Report abuse