DADT

[drn2001]

hi, all:
From the perspective of an outsider, the inability to repeal DADT seems puzzling. any idea on how it might be repealed in the short term or is it just a matter of waiting for the older generation to leave?

 

[topdog]

It's not quite as bad as it looks, but it is very frustrating - because right now there are a majority of legislators who want to see it repealed. (Polls show that the majority of the public is in favor of abandoning it as well.)

The problem is that it has gotten trapped in end-of-session politics. Republicans want a tax cut, and are blocking anything else from happening until they get what they want. And because this session of Congress ends next week, there is a lot that will be left undone with DADT probably being one of them.

Now for the more optimistic news:

• There is a new bill that was introduced last week to repeal DADT. So, it's technically still on the agenda - but most folks think time will run out before it comes to a vote.
• This autumn a lower court ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. That ruling is being appealed, and the higher court will render a judgement by spring, if not before.
• I expect that the appeal will fail, and the circuit court will agree with the lower court - that DADT treats gays differently than straights for no good reason.
• Although technically that judgement would only apply to one area of the country, there is no way the US military could do that. They will be forced to abandon the policy everywhere.
• This will really scramble things up for the military. It's not difficult to stop throwing gays out; that can be done immediately. (In fact, it's already happened. No gays have been discharged from the services since the summer.) The problem is that many everyday policies will have to be rethought to remove any bias toward gays and their partners. This would take a year at least to work through.
• But wait! This case will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. That means that in two years the "Supremes" (as they are affectionately known here) will do one of two things. They may agree with the lower court, and strike down DADT officially for the whole USA. Or they may disagree, and reinstate DADT - which means the military will have to change everything back!

All this legal and policy mess would be averted if the Congress would step up and change the law. But, it looks like that's not going to happen, so the courts will have to do it for them. But it is going away, and I expect it to happen by summer.

 

[name_1]

thanks to Topdog for explaining it so clearly!
such i believe is one of the flaws for the separation of powers but at least there is some light at the end of the proverbial tunnel..

 

[brmstn69]

The president can repel DADT with the stroke of a pen simply by issuing an executive order and he do do it without the approval of the house or senate. Truman did it in 1948 to end segregation of blacks in the military.

But, he's too afraid of pissing off the Republicans and them retaliating by sinking all of his other pet projects, which is stupid because they will do that anyways. There whole strategy is to prevent Obama form getting anything accomplished so in the next presidential election they can say that he didn't get the job done and sway voters to their candidate.

Our best hope if the Republicans do win that election, is that Obama will issue executive orders to repel DADT along with the gay marriage ban, as a final fuck you to the incoming administration...

 

[topdog]

The president can repel DADT with the stroke of a pen simply by issuing an executive order and he do do it without the approval of the house or senate. ..

That was true up until President Clinton tried to do just that. Congress threatened to write the ban on gays into law if he did it. Weeks of hearings and wrangling followed, which ended with the legislation of DADT. So, as of 17 years ago, it is now a law which can only be changed by:

• Congress repealing it or writing a new law, and the President signing the bill
• The courts declaring the law unconstitutional and throwing it out

The President alone cannot overturn a law passed by Congress.