Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

DADT Ruled Unconstitutional

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 2:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Going through message boards I'm seeing tons of complaints against the recent ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips, the main argument being that she is legislating from the bench. I truly don't understand. Isn't the role of a federal judge to rule on a law's constitutionality? That's exactly what she has done.

The Justice Department is also considering appealing the ruling, and I'm baffled. On the campaign trail and since being elected President, Obama has repeatedly pledged to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. If Obama were to sit back and let the ruling take effect, he would have the backing of his entire party behind him. Why then is he dragging his feet?

Never have I been so confused about a current political issue as I am now. If anyone able to explain what's going on?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 2:24:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 2:28:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 2:18:49 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
Going through message boards I'm seeing tons of complaints against the recent ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips, the main argument being that she is legislating from the bench. I truly don't understand. Isn't the role of a federal judge to rule on a law's constitutionality? That's exactly what she has done.
I think their complaint is exactly what you say: that it is the role of the judiciary to rule on a law's constitutionality. They don't think that the law is unconstitutional, and that the judge ruled based on her personal bias, not the Constitution. At least that's what they'd say they object to--personal bias probably has more to do with it.

The Justice Department is also considering appealing the ruling, and I'm baffled. On the campaign trail and since being elected President, Obama has repeatedly pledged to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. If Obama were to sit back and let the ruling take effect, he would have the backing of his entire party behind him. Why then is he dragging his feet?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that it is the legal duty of the Justice Department to defend U.S. law, even if the President doesn't agree with the law.

Never have I been so confused about a current political issue as I am now. If anyone able to explain what's going on?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 2:47:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/13/2010 2:28:56 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/13/2010 2:18:49 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:

I think their complaint is exactly what you say: that it is the role of the judiciary to rule on a law's constitutionality. They don't think that the law is unconstitutional, and that the judge ruled based on her personal bias, not the Constitution. At least that's what they'd say they object to--personal bias probably has more to do with it.

She gave constitutional evidence (equal standing before the law) to back up her ruling. Maybe I'm just spoiled because I'm a debater, but any fair-minded individual should at least read Phillips' reasons for her ruling before attacking it.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that it is the legal duty of the Justice Department to defend U.S. law, even if the President doesn't agree with the law.

So in every case involving federal law, the Justice Department must always be the defendant? I am starting to see why the Justice Department may need to appeal in this case. The Executive Branch oversees the Pentagon, so if the Pentagon deems it in the military's best interest to keep DADT