Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

Ninth Circuit Grants Stay of DADT Ruling Pending Appeal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the government its request for a stay in the injunction barring enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' pending appeal, the AP reports:

Dadt "Monday's decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means gay Americans who disclose their sexual orientations still can't enlist in the armed forces and can be discharged. The panel granted the government's request for a stay while it challenges the trial court's ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional. The same panel imposed a temporary hold keeping 'don't ask, don't tell' in place last week. Monday's ruling also heightens pressure on the Obama administration to persuade the U.S. Senate to repeal the 1993 law before a new Congress is sworn in."

The SF Chronicle adds: "The court has scheduled written arguments in the case through early March but has not set a hearing, which will be held before a different panel. The stay will remain in effect during the government's appeal, which could take a year or more. Daniel Woods, lawyer for Log Cabin Republicans, the gay-rights group that sued to overturn the law in 2004, said he may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay."

The Wonk Room notes:

In an eight-page decision, the justices identify “three reasons that persuade us to grant a stay pending appeal”:

- First, Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional, creating an equity in favor of the government when balancing the hardships in a request for a stay pending appeal.

- Second, “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies.”

- Third, the district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal: the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth.

Here's the order:

DADT Stay Order

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Don't forget to vote for democrats because they're not republicans! rotflmao!

    Posted by: TANK | Nov 1, 2010 5:52:42 PM

  2. And you still want me to vote Democrat? Fuck you Obama.

    Posted by: Alex | Nov 1, 2010 6:11:45 PM

  3. All the cases they cite are pretty much invalidated by "Lawrence vs. Texas". Which is a huge point in the LCR case. They argue that DADT infringes on liberties created by that ruling. Cook vs Gates was silly in any event.

    Otherwise they basically say "the military can do whatever the fuck it wants".

    Posted by: Steve | Nov 1, 2010 6:15:21 PM

  4. No, just don't vote for Obama to get the Dem nomination in 2012.

    In further idiocy, the hacks at the AP still don't get that the bill being voted on would neither automatically repeal the law nor end discharges if the law is repealed.

    But the Head Up Their Ass Award goes to Log Cabin Republicans for endorsing the guy running against Patrick Murphy, THE person in Congress who, by bringing an end to the ban closer than ever before [the same thing LCR is doing in court], fought harder for us than ANYONE else in Congress over the last year.

    Really guys, could you BE any stupider?

    Posted by: Michael @ | Nov 1, 2010 6:16:58 PM

  5. Never ask that question, Michae. There's always a "Yes" answer.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 1, 2010 6:18:38 PM

  6. The Senate is not going to lift DADT people. Quit fooling yourselves. Nothing changed under Obama and nothing will change under Republicans. The SYSTEM is at fault - not the personalities operating within it.

    Accept second-class citizenship.

    Posted by: Shane | Nov 1, 2010 6:20:50 PM

  7. "The SYSTEM is at fault - not the personalities operating within it"????

    We soooo want to think you're trying to be sarcastic....

    Posted by: Michael @ | Nov 1, 2010 6:27:43 PM

  8. Thanks Obama for freaking NOTHING!#$@#@$ I will be remembering this when I vote on Tuesday.

    Lady Gaga is going to be one very popular gurl in my ballot!

    Posted by: FunMe | Nov 1, 2010 6:39:22 PM

  9. @ Michael

    Obama will not be primaried. He will be the democratic nominee. When an incumbent President is primaried (which is rare) it always means that the opposing party will get the presidency.

    i.e. Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy...and then we ended up with Ronald Reagan who ignored AIDS and pushed back any progress on gay rights for a decade.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Nov 1, 2010 6:44:51 PM

  10. Every if every gay man and woman in the military came out publically tomorrow, the military would lose about 15% of it's force. It would be thrown into utter chaos.

    This will be what it will have to come down to for us. We have no friends, can rely on no one but ourselves. I forsee that the hugest civil uprising in the country will be gay and lesbians taking back their rights through (some) courts and through massive protests and marches on D.C. -- especially when there's a Repubican in the White House in 2012 (it's gonna happen, especially now that the House will go heavily Reoublican Tea Party dumbshits. We are going to have the least common sense, least educated body of government in modern history coming in... Welcome to America, the bigotted, hateful and ignorant.)

    Time for all gay men and women to quit partying like it's 1999 and start bucking up because we are going to have to do it ourselves and stop relying on the ineffective and the liars.

    Posted by: BartB | Nov 1, 2010 6:48:10 PM

  11. it's so easy to turn a blind-eye towards the gays, they are just gays you know. Those people can bare discrimination for a few more years, it's not like they're black or anything.

    I have zero confidence that a defense bill will get thru with DADT repeal attached.

    Posted by: Bob | Nov 1, 2010 6:50:36 PM

  12. "Accept second-class citizenship."

    Never. Demand first-class citizenship.

    "Thanks Obama for freaking NOTHING!#$@#@$ I will be remembering this when I vote on Tuesday."

    Obama isn't on the ballot on Tues. Know your candidates positions and votes on the issues, including gay rights, and vote accordingly. In 2012, we can vote on Obama. Doing so now is pointless because, like it or not, he will remain our President.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 1, 2010 6:57:14 PM

  13. No surprise here.

    The 9th Circuit did what there was a 99% chance it would do, Obama did what there was a 99% chance a bigot would do, and Brian in Texas wrote what there was a 99% chance some democratic party apologist would write. How are things at the back of the bus?

    Unless Obama believes he will lose our money, he'll never do anything more than throw crumbs. It's up to us to convince him that's what he's risking.

    Posted by: justiceontherocks | Nov 1, 2010 7:03:46 PM

  14. Infuriating! Such deep-seated stupidity over something that should be a done deal.

    But I’m still voting tomorrow and I’m voting for Cuomo, Gillibrand and the rest of the Dems on the ticket. To vote in the TeaBaggers / GOP would be ridiculously self-destructive.

    Besides, if the Dems are voted out we can’t make their lives a living hell until we get our rights!

    Posted by: ichabod | Nov 1, 2010 7:10:48 PM

  15. It's like they didn't even look at anything LCR submitted.

    Posted by: ravewulf | Nov 1, 2010 7:22:09 PM

  16. Damn, another right winged conservative trying to legislate from the bench.

    Posted by: Mac McNeill | Nov 1, 2010 7:37:30 PM

  17. i think there is an "expectations problem" among us in the lgbt community/ties. perhaps it's due to the media (both mainstream and non-mainstream), but many people were anticipating the 9th court to deny a stay.
    however, many legal analysts (check out hunter for justice, for instance) argued the very opposite; not because they're debbie-downers, but because theirs were reality-based expectations, not some opinion thrown around without evidence or analysis.
    this sucks, but people we need to grow up and stop having these hyperbolic, knee-jerk reactions that don't really do much...

    Posted by: daftpunkydavid | Nov 1, 2010 7:54:11 PM

  18. I will never vote for a Republican. I am not suicidal. It doesn't matter how mad I am with Obama today, never I tell you. I will find other ways to show my displeasure.

    Posted by: malo | Nov 1, 2010 8:08:55 PM

  19. bastards

    Posted by: niles | Nov 1, 2010 8:19:37 PM

  20. If only there were a gay rights movement that could gain support from a major political party that could then deliver equal rights...if only we had that option. If only.

    Posted by: the greasybear | Nov 1, 2010 8:21:48 PM

  21. There IS another option, Brian, which if unemployment and financial insecurity remain high, COULD happen regardless of what we non Obama asslickers want: make Barry realize his running again would guarantee defeat. See: LBJ 68.

    Of course your kneejerk response to that would be that the Dems still lost but that wasn't because LBJ dropped out but because Humphrey was such a pantywaist candidate up against titanium balls Nixon, plus all of Nixon's dirty tricks including sabotaging the Paris Vietnam War peace talks, plus the association with the Dems of chaos and anarchy from the 68 Chicago convention riots.

    Dumb as rocks hoi polloi were sucked into Nixon's "law and order" campaign like dust balls to a Hoover, and what racist votes Nixon didn't pick up, George Wallace did [over 9 million or 13.5%].

    Barry, who's not that into you, BTW, is an empty suit who managed to inspire a virtual new third party, and, despite the largest majority of both houses that any President has had in 30 years, acted as if it was 50-50 or even as if his party was in the minority.

    The best thing history will record about him is that he was the first POC elected President. After that it will just be a matter of degrees in describing what a failure he was AS President.

    Posted by: Michael @ | Nov 1, 2010 8:28:49 PM

  22. A vote for green party is a vote for a republican. You might as well stay home. It only siphons away support for the democrat and gives the republican an edge. The green party person is not a serious candidate and has no chance of winning.

    It works the same way on the other spectrum for libertarian/republican.

    Please gain some perspective and look at the big picture.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Nov 1, 2010 8:36:03 PM

  23. Brian, your views are moronic. You are the one who has no perspective and can't see the big picture.

    If you continue to give blind loyalty to a political party, no matter how often they fuck you, all you can expect is to continue to get fucked.

    Now go drink your Kool-Aid.

    Posted by: justiceontherocks | Nov 1, 2010 8:50:39 PM

  24. But what does any of this have to do with tomorrow's election? Obama (who is not on the ballot tomorrow) has a justice department that is pursuing an appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Nothing about that situation has changed now that the Ninth Circuit has granted a stay pending appeal. Obama had nothing to do with that decision, nor did any Democrats who actually ARE on any ballots.

    So how is this action by a court getting anyone angry about the President or other Democrats? Or are you as knee-jerk reactionary and totally disconnected from facts as your typical tea-bagger?

    Be mad at the court if you like. But this has zero to do with any election.

    Posted by: Zlick | Nov 1, 2010 9:49:06 PM

  25. God bless the gays who heckle Obama at his speeches and picket HRC events. Don't let anyone think Democrats are "okay with the gays" because clearly they are not.

    Posted by: Jason (the commenter) | Nov 1, 2010 9:49:45 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Watch: 'I Remember, So I'm Voting, and Not Republican'« «