Comments on: Judge rules DADT unconstitutional

By: lenny

lenny — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:01:22 +0000

I don’t live in your zip code, OU812.

By: Coby Dillard

Coby Dillard — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:13:59 +0000

Hamdam overturned the military commissions enacted by the Bush Administration, not the CONDUCT of those commissions. In other words, the ruling only looked at whether the commissions could exist, not how they were conducted.

So the procedures of the commissions never were an issue.

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:41:12 +0000

Hamdan’s not a precedent for overturning DADT, and it is not cited as such in the opinion, but it is nevertheless an example of a civilian court ruling on military procedures.

By: warren

warren — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:49:03 +0000

I don’t really think Hamdan applies, since the Court ruled that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to institute the tribunals without Congressional authorization. Since DADT is Congress’s policy, not simple an Executive or military policy, and since the DADT policy violates neither the UCMJ nor any treaty, none of the Hamden arguments for Court intervention apply to DADT.

By: Coby Dillard

Coby Dillard — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:33:57 +0000

Took it last semester; got an I-still finishing my paper on the tea party as an interest group.

While I’m finishing, perhaps you can go back and review what happened the last time the military made a major social change with little to no planning (hint: Truman).

Then maybe you’ll see why DoD needs time to figure out how to do this correctly. I have no doubt integration will happen, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t adversely affect the force.

Just declaring it unconstitutional and opening the gates ain’t it.

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:39:10 +0000

If you’d like to know, why don’t you Google a weather forecast and find out?

By: lenny

lenny — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:56:17 +0000

How’s the rarefied air up there, MB and SD?

By: MB

MB — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:23:49 +0000

Lenny, Coby, please go back and repeat American Gov’t 101.

By: Coby Dillard

Coby Dillard — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:03:02 +0000

You’re exactly right.

And this ruling STILL won’t give the LGBT community what they want. It’s not like they’ll be allowed to start signing up today.

I really question the wisdom of everyone who wants this policy to go away RIGHT NOW. What exactly will that accomplish?

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 23:21:11 +0000

“I’d like to know if civilian courts have ruled on other military issues in the past.”

1. …If you’re interested in something, other people shouldn’t have to Google it for you.

2. Yes. It has happened before. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld leaps to mind most-immediately.

By: lenny

lenny — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:21:29 +0000

I am uncomfortable with civilian courts weighing in on military policy. The military is a culture seperate and apart from civil society; rules and regulations should come from the commander in chief and his military hierarchy, not a judge who has most likely never served a day in the military. Seems to me thia is a dangerous precedent that could lead to other rulings on issues such as training practices, promotions, etc. I’d like to know if civilian courts have ruled on other military issues in the past.