Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

[Cobra Medic]

And all this time I thought we were talking about the Constitution.

Yes. The US constitution. You know. The one that says
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
and
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President

That constitution.

Maybe the font was too small when I posted it on the previous page. If that's the problem, I'm sorry.

Try this

a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
and
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President


You're welcome.

[G26ster]

Electoral College - "It was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

And all this time I thought we were talking about the Constitution. Sounds to me that several of us may be liberally rewriting the words of the fathers to pretend that words are in the Constitution when they simply are not, making it "a living document," which adapts itself to our changing nation through the years.

But all the time it appears that we were really talking about a congressional statute, which I, along with all the rest of us, did indeed learn about in junior-high, if not before. If we would all take care to say what we really mean less misunderstanding might result.

Elmo

I did not say it said "Electoral College" in the Constitution. I was making reference to the origin of that name. That said, I don't believe that calling the "Electors" cited in the Constitution the "Electoral College" makes it a congressional statute simply because it is a "general usage" name given to the Electors.

[The Annoyed Man]

... the issue remains the same: that an activist court robbed voters of the opportunity to participate in the process.

As in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?

Elmo

That's nonsense and a moldy old chestnut. The voters did participate - to the limited extent of their intellectual capacities on the democrat side, and using a ballot designed by a democrat, I might add. And every single recount, including those conducted "independently" by a media not sympathetic to Bush, found that he won the election fair and square. The effect of the court was to tell Gore and party to stop cheating and trying to steal an election, which is exactly what they were trying to pull off, by deliberately pitching the nation into a constitutional crisis. Gore & Co. are not patriots. They are dysfunctionally grabasstic opportunists who were thwarted in an effort to "take over the world" like some kind of real life Pinky and the Brain.

Bush was not nearly an ideal president, but he was an honest one - unlike Al "the planet is melting, MELTING!" Gore - and his carbon credit ponzi scheme.

...not that I have any opinion about that lying putz....

[b322da]

HOT OFF THE PRESS.

Major Witt wins at the federal district court level after a lengthy trial, Judge Leighton reported as apparently finding that her being homosexual did not hurt unit morale, but quite the contrary happened when she was separated, and that wounded servicemen do not care a hoot about the sexual orientation of a military nurse treating their wounds. She has been ordered restored to duty by the Air Force.

More acts in the play to follow.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 17337.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

[baldeagle]

Boy, that's one impartial judge there, isn't it? The judge openly cried in the courtroom and praised Witt for her courage.

That's what I like about justice in America. It's so impartial.

[b322da]

Boy, that's one impartial judge there, isn't it? The judge openly cried in the courtroom and praised Witt for her courage.

That's what I like about justice in America. It's so impartial.

So true. Is it not correct that this judge ruled against Major Witt at the first trial? Once they look at the evidence, as directed by the 9th Circuit, even judges can become emotional.

Elmo

[G26ster]

Boy, that's one impartial judge there, isn't it? The judge openly cried in the courtroom and praised Witt for her courage.

That's what I like about justice in America. It's so impartial.

So true. Is it not correct that this judge ruled against Major Witt at the first trial? Once they look at the evidence, as directed by the 9th Circuit, even judges can become emotional.

Elmo

You make a good point. Regardless of whether the judge is sympathetic to lifting DADT, in the first trial he followed "precedent." Now, after the ruling by the 9th Circuit, he is not restricted by that precedent. I would not consider this judge an "activist" judge. It will be interesting to see what the gov't's next move is.

[b322da]

Boy, that's one impartial judge there, isn't it? The judge openly cried in the courtroom and praised Witt for her courage.

That's what I like about justice in America. It's so impartial.

So true, 26ster. The Prez and his Attorney General are between a hole and a hard place, when you compare Obama's campaign promise about DADT, and his Attorney General's obligation(?) to represent the USofA in the appellate process. This will be an interesting judicial exercise no matter what one's personal views on DADT are. I would just make an ignorant guess that there does not appear to be a greSo true. Is it not correct that this judge ruled against Major Witt at the first trial? Once they look at the evidence, as directed by the 9th Circuit, even judges can become emotional.

Elmo

You make a good point. Regardless of whether the judge is sympathetic to lifting DADT, in the first trial he followed "precedent." Now, after the ruling by the 9th Circuit, he is not restricted by that precedent. I would not consider this judge an "activist" judge. It will be interesting to see what the gov't's next move is.

So very true, 26ster. The Prez. and his Attorney General seem to be firmly between a hole and a hard place, when you compare Obama's campaign promise and his punt, at least so far, on the larger question. No matter what one's personal views of DADT are, the judicial exercise which can follow should be very interesting in and of itself.

There would appear to be little question as to what the 9th Circuit will say if it gets there, and that SCOTUS will of course have the last word unless the congress stops punting and the Prez. stops punting. As Pres. Nixon probably taught us in the Watergate affair, the President apparently can order the Attorney General to not appeal. And, as I speculated earlier, pressing this case right now in the judicial system just may not be the smartest move on the part of opponents of DADT, unless they are prepared to take a chance on the Prez. not appealing.

Elmo

[snorri]

And, as I speculated earlier, pressing this case right now in the judicial system just may not be the smartest move on the part of opponents of DADT, unless they are prepared to take a chance on the Prez. not appealing.

Elmo

Witt won, so how can she or her supporters push it any further? I think appeals are only for the losers.

[b322da]

And, as I speculated earlier, pressing this case right now in the judicial system just may not be the smartest move on the part of opponents of DADT, unless they are prepared to take a chance on the Prez. not appealing.

Elmo

Witt won, so how can she or her supporters push it any further? I think appeals are only for the losers.

My observation was abstruse, subtle, very unclear and subject to misinterpretation. My bad. The gamble, if any, was taken by outside entities which pressed the appeal up to the 9th Circuit the first time, not, of course, by Major Witt's individual counsel; they did their duty faithfully as her attornies. For example, while I may be mistaken, I think the Log Cabin Republicans and the ACLU supported Major Witt in the litigation.

I know better than to express personal opinions, as contrasted with the facts, but I often behave wrong.

Sorry,

Elmo

[bdickens]

... the issue remains the same: that an activist court robbed voters of the opportunity to participate in the process.

As in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?

Elmo

That's nonsense and a moldy old chestnut. The voters did participate - to the limited extent of their intellectual capacities on the democrat side, and using a ballot designed by a democrat, I might add. And every single recount, including those conducted "independently" by a media not sympathetic to Bush, found that he won the election fair and square. The effect of the court was to tell Gore and party to stop cheating and trying to steal an election, which is exactly what they were trying to pull off, by deliberately pitching the nation into a constitutional crisis. Gore & Co. are not patriots. They are dysfunctionally grabasstic opportunists who were thwarted in an effort to "take over the world" like some kind of real life Pinky and the Brain.

Bush was not nearly an ideal president, but he was an honest one - unlike Al "the planet is melting, MELTING!" Gore - and his carbon credit ponzi scheme.

...not that I have any opinion about that lying putz....

Why was it that only Democrats couldn't figure out which hole to punch out in the ballot? I can only think of one reason off the top of my head....

[b322da]

A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to halt all enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military, worldwide. U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips of Riverside, Calif., issued the injunction after finding last month that the policy, passed by Congress in 1993, violates the constitutional rights of service members. She acted on a lawsuit brought by a gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans.

For more information... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10 ... =&emc=aua1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

[b322da]

POLITICO Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------

The Obama administration has asked for an emergency stay of a judge’s order banning worldwide enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law banning gays in the military. The Justice Department vows to appeal the ruling, and argues that President Barack Obama favors an ‘orderly’ legislative repeal of the 1993 law.

For more information... http://www.politico.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

[b322da]

Breaking News:
-----------------------------------------------------

A federal appeals court has allowed the Pentagon to continue enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military until the Obama administration has completed its appeal of a lower-court ruling which declared the law unconstitutional. One judge on the court has dissented, saying he would have suspended discharges of gay service members until appeal is resolved, which could take months or years.

For more information...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43888.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

[b322da]

Whenever national policy issues like DADT, abortion, and other hot button issues which are not about an enumerated right are settled by the federal courts, including SCOTUS, it robs the American people of the opportunity to participate in the process through their elected representatives. That's poultry excrement too.

I am sure we are all happy now that the American people participated in the process of repealing DADT when the Senate took its vote this afternoon, following the lead of the House of Representatives earlier.

Elmo