White House SHift On Don't Ask Policy

[Lucky]

Is Obama pulling a Bill Clinton and backing off on his promise to repeal the gays in the military policy? Ben Smith at Politico has caught a subtle shift in the language that they are using:

Backing off 'Don't Ask'

Aravosis has an interesting catch: The White House has subtly shifted from supporting repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to backing "changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

[caeron]

I'm going to be patient before I get mad. This isn't a top priority, and it would help to let the military work through this themselves before forcing the issue. I think the military is starting to agree that there's no evidence that homos fuck things up.

[MsGuy]

I'm going to be patient before I get mad. This isn't a top priority, and it would help to let the military work through this themselves before forcing the issue. I think the military is starting to agree that there's no evidence that homos fuck things up.

When the Pentagon started prohibiting the discharge of even an openly gay soldier if his unit was due for a tour in Iraq, it pretty much made our case for us. It's still mandatory to drum the same guy out after the unit returns from combat. Only in America.

[Lucky]

Change can happen fast!

White House reiterates its commitment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/01/2009 06:12:00 PM

It's been a disturbing 24 hours. But the White House has just updated its Web site to indicate that it continues to support the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

There was some concern that the Obama administration was backing off the President's repeated promise to lift the ban after the White House Web site yesterday changed its commitment to "repeal" DADT to a promise to only "change" the policy in a "sensible way." This led many observers, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, to worry whether the White House was backing off of its repeated commitment to, as President Obama himself promised, "fully repeal" the DADT policy.

The White House Web site has now been updated, again, and the "repeal" language is back. And while it's couched in the same terms about being done in a "sensible way," I would assume that all administration policy is implemented in a "sensible way," so this should have no bearing on whether President Obama will keep his promise to fully repeal the ban.

[MsGuy]

Or maybe a go slow faction within the administration was testing the waters.

Good posts on a important matter.

[Lucky]

More on Obama and gay rights- we got to go to the White House Easter Egg Hunt!!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/polit...07obama.html?hp

[MsGuy]

My invite must have been lost in the mail.

Is there a chance in hell that a gay/lez candidate will be be considered for SCOTUS? Are there any out sitting judges on the Federal appellate bench? We are talking of scores of slots on the Courts of Appeals; did Clinton appoint someone I have forgotten? Even one?

[Guest Conway]

Is there a chance in hell that a gay/lez candidate will be be considered for SCOTUS?

I honestly can't think of an openly gay circuit court judge that would be a candidate. Can you?

[Lucky]

From the New Republic, Yes We Can!:

A Gay Supreme Court Justice?

Politico notes that two of the people whose names are being tossed around as Supreme Court possibilities are lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both of Stanford Law School. (For more about Karlan, see this impassioned endorsement from Bill Stuntz, who has written some terrific pieces for TNR over the years.) Obviously, putting a lesbian on the court (or a gay man, for that matter, although none appear to be under consideration) would mark a wonderful step forward for the country. But is it politically possible?

The obvious, first-glance answer is that it would be a political minefield. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it would be eminently doable. And not only doable: It's even plausible to envision a scenario where it ends up helping Democrats by damaging conservatives.

First, history suggests that the country is willing to accept Supreme Court nominees from minority groups even at a relatively early stage in their integration into American political life. When Louis Brandeis was nominated to the court in 1916, anti-semitism was still pervasive. When Thurgood Marshall was nominated in 1967, the country was still in the throes of the civil rights struggle. Yet both men were confirmed.

More significantly, though, nominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction.

Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry.

Wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not. Of one thing I am confident: If it doesn't happen this time, it will happen soon enough.

--Richard Just

[MsGuy]

I honestly can't think of an openly gay circuit court judge that would be a candidate. Can you?

I can't name a single openly gay appeals judge, period. I was wondering if Clinton had nominated one that I had forgotten.

As a FYI to all the laymen here, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are the heavy lifters of the Federal judiciary. They function as deputy Supreme Courts for their respective regions of the country. SCOTUS allows most serious questions of Federal judicial policy to be thrashed out for years in the Circuits before SCOTUS takes them up. The conservatives caught on to this years ago and made a concerted effort to pack the Courts of Appeals during the Bush II administration. It was right wing nominations to these courts, not SCOTUS, that occasioned the cat fight in the Senate a few years back.

There are over 170 slots authorized for these courts. Every year numerous vacancies come up for appointment. Obama may not be willing to commit political capital to a gay nominee to SCOTUS, but Appeals Court nominees tend to fly under the public's radar. IMO gay organizations should cash in some markers and secure a few appointments to this critically important bench.

[MsGuy]

Someone (Huffington Post?) did some digging and discovered that Obama's proposed budget for the Pentagon made no provision for funds to implement a repeal of NANT. On the other hand the funding for expelling gays is still there.

I expect that tells us all we need to know, at least for this fiscal year.

[Lucky]

From Politico:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,†Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.â€

Sessions’ comments were the most explicit to date on the subject of whether he could support a gay nominee. Sessions, whom the GOP has tapped as their primary voice on the Supreme Court nomination, also wouldn’t say whether a nominee’s support for the controversial Roe v. Wade decision upholding abortion rights would be a disqualifying factor.

“I think the whole record needs to be analyzed on how they approach the law.â€

Sessions’ comments came after what appeared to be contradictory statements last week on the issue of a gay nominee. The Alabama Republican told MSNBC that he didn’t think a “person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,†while later telling Fox News that Americans “might feel uneasy about that†and it could be a “big concern.â€

On Monday, Sessions said his comments were not meant to be conflicting, and that the real measure of his support will come from a thorough evaluation of the nominee’s record.

“I think the primary thing is that a nominee show fidelity to the law and that they not have any agendas, personal, social, religious or otherwise that would keep them for being faithful to the legal system of America,†Sessions said. “So that would be my fundamental concern.â€

Confirmation of Obama’s upcoming nominee is highly likely given Democrats’ large majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. But Sessions is now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his position will be critical in determining how fierce of a battle the GOP will wage over Obama’s replacement for Justice David Souter.

Sessions meets Wednesday with Obama, Senate leaders and Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to discuss the vacancy. Sessions declined to say whether he had any objections to the handful of names being discussed as possible nominees.

Asked Monday if Republicans would focus on a nominee’s position on gay marriage, Sessions said, “I think people would want to inquire into that because … it may reflect the degree to which they think that they are not bound by the classical meaning of the constitution that they might want to let their own personal agenda go beyond what the law says.†He added that the issue of gay marriage is being debated in state legislatures across the country – “that’s probably where it should be.â€

Sessions said he had no issue if Obama considered gender or ethnic diversity in his choice, but said that Obama should primarily examine whether the nominee could be valuable to the court.

“This is the Supreme Court – we need a great justice,†Sessions said. “A person should be selected who could really make a contribution to that court. And it shouldn’t be seen as a political patronage job. It’s more important than that.â€

[seaboy4hire]

Someone (Huffington Post?) did some digging and discovered that Obama's proposed budget for the Pentagon made no provision for funds to implement a repeal of NANT. On the other hand the funding for expelling gays is still there.

I expect that tells us all we need to know, at least for this fiscal year.

I wonder how IF this is true how the Messiah's team will spin this and what flavor of Kool Aid will be offered up.

Hugs,

Greg

[MsGuy]

Maybe his own trial by fire before the Senate Judiciary Committee has made for a kinder gentler Sessions. And maybe he's been well coached not to start swinging before there's an actual nominee. Let's not forget that this guy's own senator cast the deciding vote to deny him a seat on the Federal bench.

[MsGuy]

I wonder how IF this is true how the Messiah's team will spin this and what flavor of Kool Aid will be offered up.

Hugs,

Greg

Greg, I have my share of questions about Obama too but it isn't clear to me exactly what about him gets your spittle flying. Usually you don't get so worked up over a politician. Not criticizing, just asking.

[Guest Conway]

So, if there was a niminee for SCOTUS who was openly gay, but shared judicial philosophies with Scalia and/or Thomas as opposed to the left wing of the court, would you guys support him?

[MsGuy]

So, if there was a niminee for SCOTUS who was openly gay, but shared judicial philosophies with Scalia and/or Thomas as opposed to the left wing of the court, would you guys support him?

If the out gay nominee in question had written judicial opinions that spoke highly of the criminalization of homosexual behavior and denied that the equal protection clause applied to gays, then no I would not support him. See Scalia's dissents in Romer v. Evans & the Texas sodomy case.

"Strict construction" is used as a code phrase by the religious right much as "state rights" was used by segragationists.

It's an acceptable way of saying something in public that in plain words sounds kind of harsh.

[seaboy4hire]

Greg, I have my share of questions about Obama too but it isn't clear to me exactly what about him gets your spittle flying. Usually you don't get so worked up over a politician. Not criticizing, just asking.

I guess for me I get upset that people are letting Obama do whatever he wants without checking him. And heaven forbid if someone question Obama because then that person is a traitor or terrorist. I don't see anything he is doing right. Spending all this money we do not have borrowing from other countries so heavily that it'll take many generations to pay the debt down is not good sound investment for the country. As for these banks and auto giants are too big to fall I'm not buying it. These banks are companies are failing partially because the upper mgt team got greedy and botched things up. Dennis Kucinich was almost spot on with his Wake Up America speech during the DNC.

Hugs,

Greg

[Guest Conway]

"Strict construction" is used as a code phrase by the religious right much as "state rights" was used by segragationists.

It's an acceptable way of saying something in public that in plain words sounds kind of harsh.

I have to disagree with you there. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to judicial interpretation. But. I'm hardly friendly to the ideas of the religious right. To me, strict constructionism, is a theoretical approach that says, the constitution is the basis for the law. Its the job of the legislative branch to make law and the job of the judicial branch to interpret the constitutionality of those laws.

From a societal perspective, it has been convenient to allow the courts to legislate in cases where the legislative body doesn't have the political backbone to do its job. The fact that the judicial branch doesn't have the backbone, doesn't make what I believe is an overstepping of checks and balances between branches of government right.

[MsGuy]

Greg, thanks for your answer. I have a better feel for where you're coming from now. If that opinion gets you labeled traitor in Seattle I can see why you want to move to Chicago.

You might want to think about what happened in Japan when an outraged public prevented the government from adequately recapitalizing a crippled banking system. 11 years of zero growth followed. Letting our zombie banks rot on their own is not a good option. Doesn't matter who's at fault.

Why not consider the Swedish model? In the early 90's all of Sweden's big banks collapsed. The gaovernment stepped in, took over the banks, fired existing management and reconstituted the banks on a sound basis. A couple years later it sold the banks with a minimun of loss both to the taxpayer and to the economy. Frankly, what's happening at a couple of our big banks looks a lot like a slow roll nationalization anyway. Why not just bite the bullet and do what the Swedes did?