Tag: Virginia Phillips

Judge Virginia A Phillips, US District Court, Central District of CA,  has issued an injunction which halts enforcement of the Pentagon’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, after ruling it unconstitutional last month on Sept 9, .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

http://miamiherald.typepad.com…

“This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. “While this is certainly news to be celebrated, we would also advise caution in advance of a potential stay from the Ninth Circuit. If the appellate court wishes to put itself on the right side of history, however, it will allow this sound and long-over due decision to remain in effect.”

From the injunction ruling itself: (pdf download  http://www.ServicemembersUnite…  )

(3) Orders Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have commenced under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this judgement.

(4) Grants Plaintiff Log Cabin Republican’s request to apply for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412  

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans’ request to file a motion for costs of suit, to the extent allowed by law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Virginia A Phillips

United States District Judge

dated October 12, 2010

A writeup yesterday from Law.com thinks that the Obama administration will continue to defend DADT, instead of letting the policy just die,  while waiting for  Congress to further write a new law, Sec of Defense Gates to complete his “study and survey,” and the Supreme Court to eventually issue their opinion on the appeal.

Senators Gillibrand and Udall have sent a public letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder not to appeal, saying such could hold back Congress further.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article…

Still, several signs indicate that the Obama administration plans to continue to defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. When asked about the government’s next move, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in an e-mailed statement to The National Law Journal: “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

The Justice Department already has filed an opposition to a proposed permanent injunction that would bar enforcement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell worldwide. In it, the government said that an injunction, if granted, should be limited to members of the Log Cabin Republicans.

If Phillips grants the injunction, the government could ask the 9th Circuit for a stay pending any appeal and for a stay to be granted, said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. “If she enters a permanent injunction without a stay of appeal, it will seem like a power grab,” he said of Phillips. “The 9th Circuit won’t look kindly upon it.”

As I pointed out previously, the Log Cabin Republicans are Republicans, and to limit the stay of this discriminatory law to their group, says that the US Constitution is not political party neutral,  and the Obama Administration thinks only Republicans are qualified to deserve civil rights and equal protection under the law. Another lawyer in the article pointed out there is a tendency for the judiciary to “defer” to the military.  The last time I looked, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which stated that military service can only be performed by members of one specific political party.   The Commander in Chief is still an elected civilian position, no party specified, at least in stated law.  Membership qualifications in a political party to obtain full benefit of the law, even military law, reeks of codified bribery.

The solution is obvious, the Attorney General of the U.S. should not appeal this ruling, to do otherwise implies Justice is for Sale, and our military forces are open to the highest bidder vying for the attention of one of 100 Senators.  This becomes an issue of national sovereignty.  Let DADT die.  Its time has passed.  

previous diaries on this:

Holder’s DOJ Attorneys Behaving Badly, File Objection on Dadt overturn

https://www.docudharma.com/diar…

DADT Overturned, How Hard Will Obama Admin Defend It ?

https://www.docudharma.com/diar…

Two weeks ago, I asked whether or not the Obama administration’s Department of Justice under Eric Holder would seek to thwart the ruling of Judge Virginia Phillips, when she ruled on 9/9/10 that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the military’s antiqued discharge policy used against gay people, was unconstitutional.  The lawsuit was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, who won the ruling on the grounds of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievances-  the good, old fashioned stuff.

https://www.docudharma.com/diar…

Since then, the Democrats in the Senate made another one of their feeble, half hearted attempts at accomplishing something meaningful and legally correct, and of course, failed, after 3 of their alleged Dem caucus bailed on them during a cloture vote to get an amendment to get rid of DADT tucked into the latest DOD spending bill for FY 2011.

Here’s the roll call on that pathetic 56 to 43 vote.   http://www.senate.gov/legislat…

Judge Phillips said in her ruling that she intended to issue an injunction to stop enforcement of DADT,  yesterday, the Obama Administration’s Dept of Justice Filed An Objection to Overturning DADT, and even said that the Judge would be overstepping her bounds if she did it.  

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…

“A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military’s operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe,” federal attorneys said in their objection.

Department of Justice officials declined to comment further.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to pretend this was not backpedaling on that fierce advocacy for equal rights that was mentioned in the 2008 campaign.  Instead he tried to blame Congress, via an email, sent to the Associated Press.   Odd that he said “this clearly shows why Congress must end this policy.”   Because Congress is thought of as the House, and the House has its act together on this and would vote for it.  It’s the Senate, and more specifically a Democratic Majority Senate that is at fault,  that has decided a man or a woman in some states  gets to have 2 and 2/3 Senators, while the rest of the country only gets 1 and 1/3 Senator, every time they insist on a 60 vote majority to decide any procedure.

One potential solution to this would be for every person in the military who this policy impacts to immediately declare themselves a member of the   Log Cabin Republicans, since Judge Phillips could limit the injunction to them and not upset Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice…..  too much during an election season.   I’m not recruiting for them, but it looks like President Obama is confused about that equal protection under the law Konstitooshunal bipartisanshipthingee again.   I would love to see the Judge smack down more doofus crap from any administration who is telling her that the military members have to belong to the Republican Party to have equal protection, wouldn’t you ?

And of course,

Back in April in CA at the Boxer fundraiser

Back in April at the White House

Last year in DC , Oct 2009

They say that this country is free, and they say that this country is equal, It is not equal if it is “some times”

Aside from the legal and moral issues, since this is the height of campaign season, and the President is running around the country doing million dollar fundraisers for some of these Senatorial candidates, let’s say what they fear the most:

Don’t Equalize, Don’t Pay to Play.

Because there is nothing more obnoxious that watching the current spectacle of the Senate Democrat’s Villain Rotation being used as an extortion tool.  

Six years after the Log Cabin Republicans filed suit, and 7 weeks after closing arguments on July 23,  Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the US District Court, Central District of CA, issued a landmark ruling yesterday, which overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”   Judge Phillips said in her ruling that it violates servicemembers’ Constitutional rights, and that she would issue an injunction against the government to stop it from being further enforced.

Log Cabin Republicans (LCR)  said DADT violates due process guaranteed by the 5th amendment of the Constitution and their freedom of speech, association, and the ability to petition the government, guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

Is this finally the end of one of President Clinton’s least popular compromises of the last century ?  Or will the Obama administration, who has dawdled on fulfilling a campaign promise to end DADT by refusing to issue an executive order, appeal, and continue to waffle and defer to yet another Pentagon study after Defense Secretary Gates’ latest one is due out on Dec 1 2010 ?

Since the policy was first introduced in 1993, over 13,000 military personnel have been discharged because of DADT, with 619 being discharged in 2008 and 428 being discharged in 2009.  (In the first two years of the Bush administration, it was 1,241 and 1,273 troops discharged, respectively).  Per wikipedia, of the the 26 counties of NATO, more than 22 of those already permit gay people to serve,  all of the countries of the European Union except Greece permit gay people to serve, and of the UN Security Council, 3 countries, Great Britain, France, and Russia permit gays to serve, with only the United States and China still stuck in the past.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…

The decision puts the White House in a quandary, since it comes as the Obama administration is in the middle of a cautious and drawn-out attempt to lift the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the US military.

But those carefully calibrated plans may now be thrown out the window, after Judge Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from operating, saying evidence showed that it had a “direct and deleterious effect” on the military.

A pdf of the complete ruling by Judge Phillips is here, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense:

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/C…

excerpt:

Many of the lay witnesses also spoke of the chilling effect the Act had on their ability to bring violations of military policy or codes of conduct to the attention of the proper authorities.

__

The Act prevents servicemembers from openly joining organizations such as the plaintiff in this lawsuit that seek to change the military’s policy on gay and lesbian servicemembers; in other words, it prevents them from petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. John Doe, for example, feared retaliation and dismissal if he joined the Log Cabin Republicans under his true name or testified under trial; thus, he was forced to use a pseudonym and to forgo testifying during trial. (Ex. 38 Doc Decl. pp 6- 8; see Trial Tr 88:19- 90:15, July 13, 2010, 708:21- 709:4, July 16, 2010 )

Furthermore, as discussed above, the Act punishes servicemembers with discharge for writing a private letter, in a foreign language, to a person of the same sex with whom they shared an intimate relationship before volunteering for military service. It subjects them to discharge for writing private e- mail messages, in a manner otherwise approved, to friends or family members, if those communications might lead the (unauthorized ) reader to discern the writer’s sexual orientation. These consequences demonstrate that the Act’s restrictions on speech are broader than reasonably necessary to protect the Government’s interest. Moreover, the Act’s restrictions on speech lead to the discharge of servicemembers with qualifications in critically needed occupations, such as foreign language fluency and information technology. The net effect of these discharges, as revealed not only in the testimony of the lay witnesses but also of the experts who testified and Defendants’ own admissions regarding the numbers of servicemembers discharged and the costs of recruiting and maintaining an all volunteer military force, compel the conclusion that the Act restricts speech more than reasonably necessary to protect the Government’s interests.  

Finally, it again must be noted that Defendants called no witnesses, put on no affirmative case, and only entered into evidence the legislative history of the Act. This evidence, discussed in Section IV(C)(1) above, does not suffice to show the Act’s restrictions on speech are “no more than what is reasonably necessary” to achieve the goals of military readiness and unit cohesion. (See supra Section IV (C)(1)

VI. Conclusion

Throughout the consideration and resolution of this controversy, the Court has kept well in mind the overriding principle that “judicial deference to such congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged.” Rostker, 453 U.S.at 70.  Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court held in Rostker, “deference does not mean abdication.” Id. at 67,70.  Plaintiff has demonstrated it is entitled to the relief sought on behalf of its members, a judicial declaration that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act violates the Fifth and First Amendments, and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement.

“Deference does not mean abdication….”  but since the Obama Dept. of Justice abdicated putting on much of a defense, does this mean they’re finally going to stop deferring to this form of discrimination ?