1. MikeMick says

    So a Justice Department defense is a pro-forma part of the Constitutional legal process, according to the FA and his spokesmodels. Is that why the DOMA brief his Justice Department filed last year compared our unions to pedophilia and bigamy?

  2. Trev says

    The only thing worse than doing it is spinning it. Insult to injury.

    I know Obama’s in a tough spot on this one, but I’m tired of being kicked under the bus for his political expediency. It has happened too many times.

    At some point, somebody has to do the right thing.

  3. Tim NC says

    First, the Justice Dept already “defended” DADT in court. They lost. We aren’t talking about “defending” laws any longer. Now we are talking about “appealing”. So Ms Jarrett’s claim that they must “defend” the law is irrelevant. They already defended and lost.

    Secondly, if she meant they must also “appeal” after losing, why has the Justice department said they will NOT APPEAL the court ruling they lost in regard to the Christian’s right to pass out literature in National Parks?

  4. Gridlock says

    You lying whore. Fuck you and your lifestyle choice bullshit.

    YOU do not understand the process.

  5. Alton C says

    @ Matthew – Or, maybe, we’ll finally reason that he may not have come out and said that it is unconstitutional because he does not believe it is unconstitutional. He believes it’s ‘wrong’. Those are very different positions to hold.

  6. says

    Let us please not stay as ignorant as the Tea baggers. The Government must protect the constitution, period.Obama can sign a law he can not make a law, if he were to not defend the law, however unsavory, the Palins and Rushes would have a field day, and continue to call him a Commie. We here should be a little more aware of the laws if not, we just look like fools.

  7. says

    There is going to be a full-scale political revolt of all GLBT people in this country, and poor Nancy Pelosi is going to be F’d.

    This is *all* of the President’s doing. He knows he’s not obligated to defend DADT in the courts; there’s plenty of precedent for other Presidents not supporting laws they thought were unconstitutional. This is why Obama has refused to say he thinks DADT is unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is we’re getting lip service and Obama’s more than happy to be the military’s lap dog on this one and delay DADT from being repealed for every last second he can get, his entire term in office if it’s possible.

    Well, gay people vote in some of the highest numbers out of any demographic in the entire country — and up to this point, it’s almost been unanimously for the Democratic Party. A lot of GLBT people aren’t going to do that this time around — some will switch their votes in protest, many more will probably choose to sit this one out. The President risks the entire GLBT component of the umbrella of groups needed to push Democrats through nationally… possibly forever. He’s being freaking ridiculous and stupid — not to mention bigoted.

    Well, he has only himself to blame, as 15-20 seats (or more) will be decided in the law single digits, enough to provide the buffer Democrats will need to keep the House, and Obama flushes the gay vote down the toilet that could have made the difference. Oh well.

  8. yonkersconquers says

    You know what, I don’t know a single member of the gay community who understands the presidents predicament re DADT (and honey, I get around).

  9. Jerry says


  10. says

    The Presidents perdiciment is a personal one. HE does not want LGBT Rights to be his legacy.

    Thats why he is insisting it all goes through Congress so they are responsible and he signs the papaer. Obama says he thinks DADT is wrong but then when he could have not appealed or or told the court that he thought it was unconstitution he didn’t. because then that would be his legacy. One that he obviosuly doesn’t want.

    Anyone up to sending The white House rolls of toilet papaer since they are so full of shit?

  11. says

    Apparently Ms. Jarrett was out of town last week when the Obama Justice Department declined to appeal against a ruling that found a law prohibiting the distribution of proselytizing materials in national parks an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. It’s not like it was announced in the Washington Post or anything like that.

    So if the Department of Justice has this intrinsic duty to appeal all rulings against the government, can we expect to hear from AG Holder that he’s going back to court on that one today? And if not, can someone manage to find a justification for why the DOJ “has” to appeal against the finding that DADT is unconstitutional when it doesn’t have to file an appeal in the other case? And please, try to come up with something that doesn’t just make you look like a bigger bunch of ignorant homophobes than you already do.

  12. says

    From Newsweek: “…Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. ‘The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.’”

  13. yonkersconquers says

    The administration is treating this issue like its radioactive. We can see that. Their refusal to show leadership is only too apparent.

  14. Arthur says

    My understanding is that Obama et al wants the removal of DADT to come from Congress rather than the DOJ in order to avoid the lawsuits that would follow if it came from the DOJ. Am I wrong about this? Why Valerie J is the point person on this is beyond my understanding but if that’t the game plan I think Obama deserves some credit.

  15. X says

    Americans, including American soldiers, have to seriously consider living in Canada or Europe and helping those countries, because they actually want workers at all levels, straight or gay, to help them build their societies. I know not everyone has the chance, but if you do, check it out — it seriously is a different world outside the US in some places, where you’re totally free love someone and live your life.

  16. yonkersconquers says

    Also, the timing and optics of this are spectacularly discouraging and dissapointing, obviously.

    This is a nightmare of the administrations making now. It hasn’t always been, to be fair, but their hot potato mishandling of the issue speaks for itself.

    I never assumed Obama saw GLTB rights as a priority, he’s a moderate conservative, but I also never foresaw the administrations contemptuous and ruinous mishandling of its own progressive base.

    Listening to Rahm Emanuel’s gospel has been a disaster for Obama. Gay rights are in a new moment, and this isn’t the Clinton era. It’s astouding they haven’t gleaned that.

  17. TANK says

    Some credit for a plan of inaction that hasn’t the slightest chance of working out? Congress will not repeal DADT, and when the dems lose the house, an unknown known will becoming a known known. But Obama feels he can get away with this (people do what they can get away with–and that is especially true for politicians), because where else will the “lifestyle choicers”,aka, fags go in 2012? There is no other way to look at this but as a stunning insult.

  18. Tom says

    It seems to me that the Justice Department’s first duty should be to defend the Constitution, then secondarily laws passed by Congress.

    Since this law is blatantly unconstitutional, there should be no shame in simply accepting the judgment of the court.

  19. Dan4444 says

    He does need to defend it. That’s just the way it goes. I understand that. Otherwise some district judge could declare healthcare unconstitutional in the future and (future president) Palin could easily decline to fight it. So it’s important that he do this.

    That being said, there is more that can be done. The Executive Branch could also say it’s unconstitutional in their defense. They can present the argument in their defense. That way, should it reach the supreme court, that could play into their decision. This is the thing that the gov’t needs to do that they are ignoring, and that is what disappoints me.

  20. David in Houston says

    How does this administration expect to overturn DADT when one of the most extreme homophobes, Sen. McCain, has made it his life’s work trying to stop the repeal? Seriously, Congress is NOT going to repeal DADT anytime soon. So if they won’t do the right thing, the courts are going to have to.

  21. Fenrox says

    Wow you guys should join the Tea Party, Then EVERY time you don’t understand something you can get hurt and blather on so a bunch of other morons can validate your ignorance.

    He is doing an OK job asshats, If you don’t like it, try to promote another candidate and oust him.

    Also be sure to be vocal about your stupid opinions like you are here in the comments thread, I want to be sure to never have fun with any of you.

  22. homo genius says

    Conway should be fired. In business when you do “change management”, there will always be those that are resistant or cant move forward and have to be let go.

    I also wonder if Conway is aware that there is an entire porn subgenre starring his macho marines. Does he not know that many of his macho boys are already queer?

    I read yesterday in comments elsewhere that the “study” they are doing is actually about how to segregate the gays. Seperate bunks, showers and career paths. That this will be the “comprise” the dems make to get a repeal. I didnt put much stock in this hearsay but after reading Conway’s comments again it does make one wonder.

    Anyway. Many of us do realize the WHY they are defending. Its the HOW we take issue with.

  23. Tim NC says

    Homo Genius

    Conway will be retiring in a few months. The best part is that the man Obama has nominated to replace him shares Conway’s views on this matter and testified to that effect in the Senate.

  24. Tim NC says

    Dan4444 If you believe that a future President Palin would modify her behavior based on what Obama does or does not do now, I want some of the drugs you’re taking.

  25. candideinnc says

    Liars. We fully understand the process and your latitude in the process. You are simply jerking the gays around for your political opportunism. Obama sucks, and so do the people who do his lying for him

  26. Keith says

    @Michael. I couldn’t agree with you more. The double standard is glaring in that the administration has chosen not to appeal the constitutionality of distributing religious material in national parks, but has chosen to appeal DADT even though the President himself as said it harms military readiness and morale. Personally, I think the President will not succeed in overturning DADT in Congress, and that the military will continue to discriminate in any way it can through lies and distortions. Our nation is not based upon a system of truths and facts, but rather of beliefs and prejudices.

  27. Brains says

    Most, except a few , of these comments are Tea Baggger academic level nonsense!

    First, The DOJ is required by the Consitution to defend the laws of the land. They are independent from the Executive (The Presidency),and technically above its influence.

    The President in this case has his back-to the-wall, at a very difficult time. Does he violate the Executive for this issue and end up fighting a constitutional battle, or does he challenge the Legislature to do what is right and within their authority.

    To those of you that will vote for the Green Party, sit at home, or vote Republican. Good luck to you. You are the very reason why it has taken so long for our community to gain Equal Rights. As you refuse to educate yourselves on issues, but instead scream nonsensical rubbish from the bleachers.

    What a pack of “Sad Young Men”!

  28. Zlick says

    Apparently gays don’t enough political clout to bother not pissing away their votes purposefully, so what’s the difference if we stay home or vote Green or freaking vote Tea Party?

    I wish I could do that myself, but the Democrats up for election in my state (California – with Boxer for Senate and Brown for governor) are staunch and consistent supporters of gay rights. So there can be no “protest” vote or non-vote from me. But even though my state is nearly guaranteed to go for Obama in 2012, he’s lost my vote forever.

  29. Brains says

    You are absolutely correct regarding a lack of “political clout” of our group……

    However , we live in a “Democratic Republic”: where those with the most votes have the power to pass or override most Bills, and filibusters. If we have a President who will not veto any gay legislation, our position should be to make sure we reinforce the Democrat majorities in Congress and the Senate. So when we enact legislation, we have no obstruction!

    Sitting at home, or not voting, gives the extra vote to the opposing side!

    We need to think strategically, with President Obama being only one pawn in “our” Chess Game: he uses us, and we must learn to use him!

  30. Tim NC says

    @Brains You need to read the Newsweek article that explains in great detail by experts just exactly what the presidents options are.

    Your contention that the DOJ must defend all laws just isn’t true. And, in fact the DOJ just last week announced that they will not defend a recent decision that they lost in regards to Christians passing out flyers in the National Parks.

  31. anon says

    Once a law has been declared unconstitutional, it is no longer “the law of the land”, so the courts do not require constant appeals and the DOJ is not required to defend it any longer. In fact, they actively discourage it. Rather, what is shaking out is two things: military pressure on the administration to keep the policy in place and two, the DOJ/Administration sees the law as constitutional. The AG is not a free agent. The president is chief executive and solely responsible for executing all laws. The AG operates with varying degrees of independence depending on the president.

  32. simon says

    In one of the articles here, even a former solicitor general Ted Olson doesn’t understand the process. How can she expect us to understand?

  33. db says

    There was an interesting article in the NY Times showing a way Obama could still fulfill his obligations to defending laws while also doing the right thing. Based on various things she’s said I’m not sure Jarrett especially wants DADT struck down. And considerint the way the Obama administration defends this law and DOMA–not that they defend it but that they do it vigorously and in really offensive ways–I’m not sure Obama really wants these laws struck down either.

  34. ptx says

    Don’t buy it — I say, raise hell about the administration’s challenge and don’t pledge a dime to the Dems until this is resolved favorably.