Barack Obama | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News | Valerie Jarrett

Watch: Valerie Jarrett Says Many Who Oppose DOJ Appealing 'DADT' Injunction Don't Understand the Process

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett this morning defended the Department of Justice appeal of the injunciton placed on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the Wonk Room reports.

Jarrett Said Jarrett to American Morning: "You know what, the Justice Department is required to defend the law of the land. Believe me, we wish there were another way because the President has been so clear. And I think there are many members of the gay community who actually understand this and who are work with us to try to put pressure on Congress to repeal it. It’s clear at that vast majority of American people think that it should not be the law. And we are determined to have Congress revoke it. But we have to go through that orderly process."

In related news, an AP article posted this morning attempts to explain why White House lawyers are fighting to keep the policy in place even though Obama says he wants it repealed:

The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others."

Another AP article revives many of the ugly conservative talking points on the issue:

"Will straight and gay troops have to shower next to one another?...If the military lifts the ban suddenly, would there be attacks on gays? Would religious parents, coaches and teachers who oppose gay rights persuade young recruits not to enlist? If a platoon member says he is gay, would his comrades still support him, or would there be infighting? Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, claims, by his own informal survey of the force, some 90 to 95 percent oppose letting gays serve openly. 'We recruit a certain type of young American, pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country,' he said."

Watch Jarrett defend the DOJ and Obama, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments


  1. 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.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Oct 21, 2010 12:11:41 PM


  2. 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.

    Posted by: homo genius | Oct 21, 2010 12:13:22 PM


  3. 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.

    Posted by: Tim NC | Oct 21, 2010 12:17:37 PM


  4. 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.

    Posted by: Tim NC | Oct 21, 2010 12:22:01 PM


  5. where do they think they're getting all those macho gals from?

    Posted by: anon | Oct 21, 2010 12:22:27 PM


  6. 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

    Posted by: candideinnc | Oct 21, 2010 12:36:41 PM


  7. @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.

    Posted by: Keith | Oct 21, 2010 12:39:39 PM


  8. 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"!

    Posted by: Brains | Oct 21, 2010 12:45:25 PM


  9. 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.

    Posted by: Zlick | Oct 21, 2010 1:05:09 PM


  10. I second Brains

    Posted by: Dan4444 | Oct 21, 2010 1:25:41 PM


  11. 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!

    Posted by: Brains | Oct 21, 2010 1:41:04 PM


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

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

    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.

    Posted by: Tim NC | Oct 21, 2010 1:56:47 PM


  13. 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.

    Posted by: anon | Oct 21, 2010 1:57:32 PM


  14. 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?

    Posted by: simon | Oct 21, 2010 3:14:02 PM


  15. 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.

    Posted by: db | Oct 21, 2010 4:34:21 PM


  16. Yeah, like Ted Olson for example.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Oct 21, 2010 10:46:15 PM


  17. 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.

    Posted by: ptx | Oct 21, 2010 10:54:33 PM


  18. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: Meg Whitman is Arnold Schwarzenegger« «