October 14th, 2010
04:14 PM ET
4 years ago

Justice department appeals judge's 'don't-ask-don't-tell' ruling

Washington (CNN) – The Justice Department Thursday formally appealed a federal court ruling that struck down the government's "don't-ask- don't-tell" policy, requesting an emergency stay to block the judge's injunction stopping enforcement of the policy.

Justice Department lawyers say they want the federal court in California to grant a stay of the injunction, which would remain in effect throughout the appeals process.

FULL STORY


Filed under: Don't Ask Don't Tell
soundoff (30 Responses)
  1. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    It makes sense since Obama and other had wanted this to go through Congress rather than the courts. It is just wanting to do this properly and for another legislative victory.

    October 14, 2010 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  2. Marcus

    That's quite simple, and if I am not mistaken there was another ruling of the SCOTUS dealing with homosexuals and bigotry against them that exposed it clearly, if there's no REAL HARM to nobody (except the paranoid & bigot's minds) then no offical authority has anything to do with what two (or more) people does in private.
    The national security IS really in danger if gays are allowed to come out of the closet and yet serve?
    No. Most of those who had to get out were doing well and fine, nothing to be ashamed of (quite the contrary).
    Will there be some moral decay (in whatever level) if they are allowed to go (or stay) serving?
    NO! The same stupidity was said when they ended with the 'racial division' and when women were allowed to go to the front. They were wrong back then and are wrong right now.
    But what about sexual harrassment and worst?
    If it happens then, for the sake of the military forces, it will have to be dealt with in the very same way that it would if it was between two people of different sexes, with the full force of the Military Penal Code!!!!!

    October 14, 2010 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |
  3. J.R.Stafford

    It makes sense to me because he has shown how incompetent he is at everything else, with exception of his socialist medical reform bill. Why shouldn't he break the promises made to the community just to get elected.

    October 14, 2010 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |
  4. Djibril

    @S.B. Stein E.B. NJ: that's clear, but what is the practical difference between this going through Congress vs going through the courts? Is one of them more or less prone to being reversed by the next conservative administration? Is one somehow more or less just than the other? (I genuinely ask.)

    October 14, 2010 04:41 pm at 4:41 pm |
  5. bob

    I knew he was a homophobe. I can't believe I voted for him.

    October 14, 2010 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  6. gt

    how bout that ... what say you "obama supporters".....this guy is bi polar...

    October 14, 2010 04:44 pm at 4:44 pm |
  7. jh

    They denounce it in public, stall repealing it in private, and appeal whenever a judge rules against it. When they appealed on gay marriage, the government's attorneys actually used the "marrying your sister" and marrying your dog" arguments. No doubt in this appeal we'll hear some similar doozies from attorneys representing the government of gay people's "fierce advocate."

    October 14, 2010 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  8. Bruce

    This administration is going to dither themselves right into one-term oblivion - here is the first African-American president in history, presiding over an administration whose Secretary of Defense has proposed the notion of "segregated" units of gay and straight members of the military - that's some spectacle. I'm not even gay, and too old for the military (though from what I've seen of that unit using the drugs and killing civiliians for sport in Afghanistan, why anyone who isn't a psychopath would want to join this military is beyond me), and don't even care that much about this issue, but if they pursue this appeal there's a real good chance I'll sit out the 2012 election - why the f-ck did I even vote for this guy if all he's going to do is dither and take half-steps, even when he doesn't have to? If Bush had ever had 60 votes on his side in the US Senate, he and Cheney would have been amending the Constitution in their image.

    October 14, 2010 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  9. stufthis

    It was passed in congress and should be repealed in congress. However, since congress is inept with the minority party running the senate, I doubt congress will do their job.

    October 14, 2010 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  10. David

    I'm not sure if anyone's even reading the updated article, but the Obama administration is trying to get this passed. It was a women in the California Supreme Court that issued the injunction- not the Obama Administration. An injunction is a temporary stay on a judgment until the decision actually reaches a court, or next higher court. Likelihood is the stay will last at most a few months before a new judge reverses it and finally removes DADT once and for all. You people really should do some research before shooting your mouths off.

    October 14, 2010 04:55 pm at 4:55 pm |
  11. Rick in OP

    Federal judges have no business injecting themselves into matters concerning the composition of the armed forces of the United States. Especially in a time of war.

    October 14, 2010 04:55 pm at 4:55 pm |
  12. stufthis

    If Rick is saying the military is exempt from constitutional guarantees and American laws, he is advocating a very dangerous attack on democracy.

    October 14, 2010 05:02 pm at 5:02 pm |
  13. William

    So much for Obama being about human rights or Gay and or lesbian rights. Obama is a world class hypocrite and world champion liar. I know many social conservatives are not for gay rights but at leas t they are honest about it and not two faced like Obama. I as an independent am FISCAL conservative and social moderate and support fully woman and gay rights as just plain basic human rights to self identity and equal justice under the Constitution.

    October 14, 2010 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  14. Randolph Carter, I'm no expert, but...

    J.R.Stafford
    "It makes sense to me because he has shown how incompetent he is at everything else, with exception of his socialist medical reform bill. Why shouldn't he break the promises made to the community just to get elected."
    October 14, 2010 04:38 pm at 4:38 pm |

    There was nothing socialist about "healthcare reform." It basically was a big giveaway of taxpayer money to the insurance industry. You must be one of the ignorant, uneducated, fear-ridden "real Americans." Have a nice day!

    October 14, 2010 05:19 pm at 5:19 pm |
  15. Randolph Carter, I'm no expert, but...

    I think they should allow gay members to serve openly. The military really does need to try new things because whatever they're doing now is not working. They haven't won a war in 65 years. We're really not getting our tax dollars worth out of the military. Have a nice day!

    October 14, 2010 05:22 pm at 5:22 pm |
  16. Job

    The legislative branch of the government has never taken the lead on civil right issues. It has always been addressed in the high courts and then reactively supported through new legislation. No Congress or President has had the spine to move on these matters so for people to say the courts have no place need to go back and relearn American History and Government. We have a three branched system and a federal judge in Ca has just as much right to address this issue when brought to his/her court as a Senator from Az has to block it in the senate.

    October 14, 2010 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm |
  17. stufit

    Like everything else to do with this lying, corrupt, inept, incompetent, union toady president, this is very confusing and I am sure there is some sort of horrid political motive behind it. All for it myself.

    October 14, 2010 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm |
  18. Mark Yelka

    If it's okay that blacks were denied civil liberties, and if it's okay that women were denied liberties, then it's okay to deny liberties to gays. Yeah, eventually they might get civil rights, but they're going to have to walk the gauntlet first.

    October 14, 2010 05:24 pm at 5:24 pm |
  19. Doris V

    All people should be treated fairly. The DADT practice in the millitary has been wrong since it's inception. Since when does the military out trump the federal judiciary? I don't want a military state. As for the Obama administration and Eric Holder, I think they should keep out of this. I voted for Obama and agree with him on most issues. This is not one of them. What happens between two consenting adults is their business and no one else's.

    October 14, 2010 05:25 pm at 5:25 pm |
  20. Albo58

    Though certainly not perfect, DADT has worked since it was inacted. What is nauseating to this 24 year AF veteran is watching these "never served" politicians, special interest groups, judges, and lawyers grandstand and trip over themselves to impress/please a small minority of folks in the military and civillian folks that would never have the guts to serve, no matter what the rules were! The overwhelming number of gay people within the military that are convicted of a DADT violation wanted to get get caught so they could get out of an assignment and the military, in general. Within the military, there have not been McCarthy-like witch hunts for gays since the end of Vietnam War despite what the far left liberals rant. Lastly, I strongly suspect by equal treatment for gays, the libs really mean special treatment (promotions, assignments, living arrangements, etc) for gays. Most military folks have no problems with gays within the military now, but a special treatment policy would become a huge rock in the road for the military to try and conduct YET another social experiment program!

    October 14, 2010 05:26 pm at 5:26 pm |
  21. Marcus in Greensboro, NC

    As a Liberal, Progressive, and Gay Democrat, I saw this move as clearly political. Appeal to Conservatives, in the short term, and I think that the ultimate goal is to rid ourselves of this archaic policy. I think that people want to look at this as negative, but it will all work out in the end. This law and others will be out the door.

    October 14, 2010 05:40 pm at 5:40 pm |
  22. vic nashville tn

    Waste of tax money again

    October 14, 2010 05:41 pm at 5:41 pm |
  23. michaelaustintexas

    Can we now stop call Obama a left-wing socialist?

    This is NOT pandering to the liberal base.

    October 14, 2010 05:52 pm at 5:52 pm |
  24. Rachel

    He's saving this to run on in 2012 He will get it ended after the november elections. Everything is political.

    October 14, 2010 06:26 pm at 6:26 pm |
  25. drew

    If the current administration opposes it then the president needs to exercise his authority as the commander in chief of the military and repeal it summarily

    October 14, 2010 07:06 pm at 7:06 pm |
1 2