An attaboy for the Republicans

[cal_junior]

Republican group brought 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' enforcement in front of a district court where it was struck down. Nice job, GOP:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_dont_tell_enforcement.html?hpid=topnews

[RedskinsDave]

Before any of the predictable GOP haters chime in, I will let you know that the Log Cabin folks are not officially part of the GOP. We don't allow positive things to be said about the GOP 'round here.

[akhhorus]

I'm still waiting for anyone at DOJ/WH to explain why they're against DADT, but aren't willing to take the easy out here and don't appeal this ruling. To be fair, the DOJ took a dive in this case, they didn't put up any defense of DADT except just submitting into evidence a history of the legislation. But they need to realize that they'll never get 60 votes in the Senate for repealing it, even though 60+% of republican voters are in favor of ending it and allowing gays to serve openly.

[RedskinsDave]

Because Akh, they have commissioned a study that isn't done yet. Think of the jobs lost if they don't appeal.

[akhhorus]

Because Akh, they have commissioned a study that isn't done yet. Think of the jobs lost if they don't appeal.

Lol. Everyone knows what that panel is going to say, I understand going through the charade for the midterms, but the panel isn't going to report until January. Why bother? There's no political move and the WH is going to go to war with the Generals in 2011 over Afghanistan anyways.

[justinskins]

I'm still waiting for anyone at DOJ/WH to explain why they're against DADT, but aren't willing to take the easy out here and don't appeal this ruling. To be fair, the DOJ took a dive in this case, they didn't put up any defense of DADT except just submitting into evidence a history of the legislation. But they need to realize that they'll never get 60 votes in the Senate for repealing it, even though 60+% of republican voters are in favor of ending it and allowing gays to serve openly.

IMO, the executive branch has a duty to defend all successfully passed legislation, even if the political leadership disagrees with the law and wants to change it. That's the DOJ's job. They may not appeal, but they should.

[BurgundyNGold]

IMO, the executive branch has a duty to defend all successfully passed legislation, even if the political leadership disagrees with the law and wants to change it. That's the DOJ's job. They may not appeal, but they should.
Meh. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing laws, not defending them. And the concept of "enforcement" varies by law to law and executive to executive.

[RedskinsDave]

They should just leave well enough alone because nowhere that a Dem can win would this even be an issue. As it is, no Republican can blame any democrat for this since it was the LCR who got it done. It would be the perfect ending to the whole thing.

[cal_junior]

IMO, the executive branch has a duty to defend all successfully passed legislation, even if the political leadership disagrees with the law and wants to change it. That's the DOJ's job. They may not appeal, but they should.

And that's exactly what is going to happen. They will appeal, hopefully in an appropriately half-hearted way, lol.

[akhhorus]

IMO, the executive branch has a duty to defend all successfully passed legislation, even if the political leadership disagrees with the law and wants to change it. That's the DOJ's job. They may not appeal, but they should.

I understand that in the initial trial. By even showing up in court, you're semantically defending it. In the appeal, you don't have to.

And they are appealing, but I doubt they'll put up anything more than some pro forma defense.

[RedskinsDave]

IMO, the executive branch has a duty to defend all successfully passed legislation, even if the political leadership disagrees with the law and wants to change it. That's the DOJ's job. They may not appeal, but they should.

It already defended it and lost. There is nothing that says they have to appeal.