DADT Temporarily Upheld By Appeals Court

[TampaYankee]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Temporarily Upheld By Appeals Court

LISA LEFF | 10/20/10 10:46 PM | AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Wednesday temporarily granted the U.S. government's request for a freeze on a judge's order requiring the military to allow openly gay troops.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed lawyers for the gay rights group that brought the lawsuit successfully challenging the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to file arguments in response by Monday.

The judges would then decide whether to extend the temporary stay while it considers the government's appeal of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling that the policy was unconstitutional.

It was unclear what effect the temporary freeze would have on the Pentagon, which has already informed recruiters to accept openly gay recruits and has suspended discharge proceedings for gay service members.

Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said "for the reasons stated in the government's submission, we believe a stay is appropriate."

She declined to say whether the Defense Department would roll back its guidance to military lawyers and recruiters that they must abide by last week's injunction. It has been assumed, however, that the Pentagon would revert to its previous policy of "don't ask, don't tell" if a stay were to be granted throughout the appeals process.

The White House referred questions to the Justice Department. Alisa Finelli, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, declined to comment Wednesday.

President Barack Obama said last week that the Clinton-era law "will end on my watch" but added that "It has to be done in a way that is orderly, because we are involved in a war right now." He said he supports repeal of the policy, but only after careful review and an act of Congress.

A lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans said the group was disappointed, but called it a minor setback. The group, which brought its lawsuit in 2004, argues that forcing gays in uniform to remain silent about their personal lives violates their First Amendment rights and that the military's reluctance to end the policy was based on unfounded fears, not facts.

"We hope that the 9th Circuit will recognize the inherent contradiction in the government's arguments for a longer stay in light of eight full days of non-enforcement with no 'enormous consequences,'" said Alexander Nicholson, a gay veteran who also was a plaintiff in the Log Cabin lawsuit.

The 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" rule says gays may serve but only if they keep secret their sexual orientation.

Government lawyers argue that striking down the policy and ordering the Pentagon to immediately allow openly gay service members could harm troop morale and unit cohesion when the military is fighting two wars.

The brief order was signed by the three 9th Circuit judges hearing emergency motions this month: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Stephen S. Trott, who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and William A. Fletcher, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

__

Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, and Anne Flaherty in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

See original article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/dont-ask-dont-tell-tempor_n_770737.html

[BiBottomBoy]

So, the dems can now delay this until after the elections and then kill DADT in late November.

[RA1]

The strategy seems to be: because the administration has 60 days to appeal the lower court ruling they can not only wait for the elections to be over but also wait upon the military report due in early December supposedly stating how the military feels about the impact of repealing DADT. If the military has no "problem", then presumably the Congress can act, thus taking the administration "off the hook". The hook being two fold. One, the administration has stated they are against DADT but would prefer the Congress to repeal it, not the courts and two, ordinarily, the government should and would appeal a ruling such as this one by the lower court because the court has counter manded one of the government's rules (whether the present adminstration enacted it or wanted it or not). The government did get the appeals court to stay the lower court temporarily. Nice to have your cake and eat it too.

Best regards,

RA1