Barack Obama | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News | Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Case Challenging 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with a lower appeals court decision upholding the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, refusing to hear a case brought by 12 former servicemembers (Pietrangelo v. Gates):

Dadt "The rebuff spares President Barack Obama’s administration from the awkward task of mounting a legal defense for a policy the president says should be repealed. In urging the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal, administration lawyers said a lower court was correct to uphold the policy. The high court case stemmed from a lawsuit by 12 former service members who were discharged because of their sexual orientation. A federal appeals court in Boston threw out the suit, disagreeing with a San Francisco-based appeals court that had let a similar suit go forward. One of the 12, James E. Pietrangelo II, asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case. Most of the rest of the group joined a brief asking the justices to defer reviewing the policy while the administration and lawmakers revisit it."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. The Obama administration is now actively working against gay rights rather than doing nothing. That's great.

    As angry as I am right now, I can't even imagine what I would feel like if I had contributed money, or gone to the DNC convention, turned my website into a 24/7 Obama propaganda machine...or voted for him.

    Posted by: paul c | Jun 8, 2009 11:03:21 AM


  2. What does everyone expect? Obama is just another "typical" politician. He made promises, and said whatever he had to say to get elected. I think it was on Bill Maher someone said, "It is sad that Dick Cheney and Iowa are more liberal than Obama and California."

    Posted by: Jeremy | Jun 8, 2009 11:07:33 AM


  3. So much for the justice system standing up for the rights of the minorities. The fact that the current administartion may be thinking about possibly reviewing the policy is not a rational response to discrimination. They can't even be bothered to listen to the case.

    Posted by: bluprntguy | Jun 8, 2009 11:13:12 AM


  4. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by this.

    Posted by: farrellcsun | Jun 8, 2009 11:16:16 AM


  5. The Surpreme Court denies gays rights? Blame Nobama!

    (Procedes to dance like fellow Free Republic jerk offs Jeremy and Paul C)

    Posted by: Surprised | Jun 8, 2009 11:18:21 AM


  6. No! The Margaret Witt case from the 9th Circuit is the battle to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. This case was a loser.

    Posted by: K in VA | Jun 8, 2009 11:19:55 AM


  7. Paul C, I'm so sorry John McCain and Sarah Palin aren't running this country, too. What were we thinking voting for Barack Obama? What fools we were!

    Oh, wait -- John McCain was a powerless sell-out and Sarah Palin was evil, stupid and insane.

    Maybe you voted for one of the fringe candidates? Since those votes had the same effect as being votes for McCain, same outcome.

    I guess my question is: if you're so smart, why did you vote -- either directly or indirectly --for John McCain?

    I'm glad your candidate was defeated last year and I would work just as hard to defeat your candidate all over again. This is the best we could ever expect to work with. Maybe you should be a little less angry and a little more rational.

    Posted by: ohplease | Jun 8, 2009 11:25:51 AM


  8. Contrary to what many may think, this is a positive outcome. Do not forget that this court is very conservative, Had the case been taken up by the court and a negative handed down, it would have set back the cause of repeal by years. A legislative course is the way to go on DADT.

    Posted by: David | Jun 8, 2009 11:27:09 AM


  9. To be fair, the Court did not agree with the lower court. They simply denied certiorari. A denial of cert. is not a judgment on the merits of a case.

    Posted by: Eric | Jun 8, 2009 11:28:05 AM


  10. How EXACTLY is Obama to blame for what the court does?

    Waiting.

    Uh huh.

    That's what I thought.

    Posted by: Derek Washington | Jun 8, 2009 11:38:13 AM


  11. Do you guys have writers with even a basic understanding of how the law works, or do you just make things up as you go along?

    You do a disservice to your readers when you say the USSC "agreed" with the lower court's ruling. It did no such thing.

    Posted by: Lar | Jun 8, 2009 11:52:33 AM


  12. Also the SC will turn down a case if there is another case thats better put together on tis way. And there also is the chance the the SC turned down hearing it because they thinbk or know Legistaive change is on the way and they don't want to clog their schedule with something thats being or will be taken care os legislatively.

    Posted by: Wolfie | Jun 8, 2009 11:54:51 AM


  13. @ Derek

    I agree with you there.

    Why are the middle-aged white gay men on this blog so damn ignorant?

    It must be Log Cabin's disease.

    Anyone who think McCain/Sarah Palin would have been a better ticket for gay rights is a sell out to their gay brothers and sisters and if you thought they would have been better in the oval office overall, you are as stupid as the white crackers and barefoot cousins who were at McCain's losing speech.After Obama won the election.

    Are all middle-aged white gay men suffering from LCD (Log Cabin's Disease)?

    They must be,because it seems they are they only one's who seem to think McCain/Palin would have been better for gay rights. Those tralier park losers made it LOUD and CLEAR that they were against gays.But it seems the only people who are smart enough to comprehend that are most in my generation (generation Y) Those of us ranging from ages 18 to about 30.

    Im not comparing anyone's head to a butt-plug,but for many of the old ignorant queens on this blog,your head spends alot of time up your ass.To say the least.

    Posted by: Nelson | Jun 8, 2009 11:56:43 AM


  14. Those tralier park losers made it LOUD and CLEAR that they were against gays.

    Thats suppose to read "Trailer Park"

    get so damn pissed off I make typos

    Posted by: Nelson | Jun 8, 2009 11:59:39 AM


  15. Derek, while it's true that Obama is not to "blame" for what the USSC does, don't forget that his administration filed a brief asking the court not to hear the appeal.

    But I am totally with the above commenters that this denial of cert says absolutely nothing about the merits, and the statement that the USSC "agreed" with the lower court is just as wrong as it can be.

    Posted by: Glenn | Jun 8, 2009 12:18:17 PM


  16. If people would take two seconds to get their news from places other than Towleroad or the Daily Show, they would have a better idea of what's going on.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

    "WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration."

    It was REQUESTED by the OBAMA administration. They don't even want to give these gay men and women a chance to argue their case to the Supreme Court.

    @ohplease - That's cute that you think there are only two parties with candidates in the presidential election. Dumb as all fuck, but just preciously naive and quaint.

    Posted by: paul c | Jun 8, 2009 12:20:31 PM


  17. If anything, since there are no federal protections for GLBTs on the books, the courts did us a favor in not hearing the case. You can't make up law out of thin air and the court would be required (if they heard the case) to uphold the law as written, not what we want it to be.

    This would have not come out in our favor if it had gone to the Supreme Court.

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Jun 8, 2009 12:35:40 PM


  18. I know, Nelson! Wuts wit all these dumb ol' honky queens up in here?

    Gurrrrl, text me on my iphone... I gotz a killer new pink sparkly case! Or better, tweet me! We'll catch up at da club and trip to sum GaGa. Lates!

    Posted by: crispy | Jun 8, 2009 12:58:34 PM


  19. " I gotz a killer new pink sparkly case!"

    "Gotz" Now, now, CRISPY, you're mixing old Hollywood style Negro dialect with contemporary urban Ebonics. You know better than that.

    "I gotz"....no you didn't, Miss Thang.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 8, 2009 1:10:14 PM


  20. Excuse me, why are some of you (presumably) racial minority queens playing the race card? Unless you are truly trolls?

    Everybody needs to chill on that dumb racial shit, please!

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Jun 8, 2009 1:11:50 PM


  21. Nelson -

    your vituperative assessment is noted. we only hope that you don't ever have to rely on pledges and advancement promises while you watch your friends and loved ones waste away and die waiting for help. it might give you a different perspective.

    by the way, there is nothing wrong with "ignorance". it only means you don't know something, and you can find out about it.

    "stupidity", on the other hand, means knowing that something is wrong and doing it anyway.

    "idiocy" is being too stupid to know that you're ignorant.

    Posted by: mike/ | Jun 8, 2009 1:14:08 PM


  22. That knife in the back hurts, doesn't it? Well, so much for "change we can believe in". Once again, for expediency's sake, gay men and women have been kicked in the teeth by the Obama administration, which took the side of the Pentagon before the Supreme Court. What does that tell us? It tells us that we can't trust any politician anymore. It also tells us that it is time to get, um, NASTY about these things.

    Posted by: mike | Jun 8, 2009 1:29:50 PM


  23. Derrick, I was going for vapid gay youth... all skin tones represented.

    But I am so old and unhip, I have clearly failed. Nelson is probably laughing into his TwatBook. Or whatever the kids are into these days.

    Posted by: crispy | Jun 8, 2009 1:47:00 PM


  24. Forget McCain/Palin...we coulda and shoulda had Hillary!

    Posted by: NYSmike | Jun 8, 2009 2:09:02 PM


  25. Ah, yes: for the one-issue voter. Who cares that MCcAin/Palin would do nothing about health care, sit on their hands during a recession, perpetuate the war in Iraq indefinitely, AND be unashamedly anti-gay, vote GOP!

    Really, for a reality check about GOP policies, Google images: Iraq War Dead with safe search off, and look at where the last GOP president got us (and Al Gore didn't have 'pure' LGBT stances either).

    And NYSMIKE: Hillary's positions on LGBT issues were indistinguishable to Obama's, regardless of how much we all adore the Strong Woman.

    Posted by: Kugel | Jun 8, 2009 2:34:51 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «First Look: China's Massive Three Gorges Dam Project from Space« «