by Lara Jakes
Associated Press
The Supreme Court today turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting an Obama administration request to maintain the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" directive.
The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's policy.
The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the policy is unconstitutional. In 1993, President Bill Clinton established the policy as a compromise after strong resistance from the military and Congress toward allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."
"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.
Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.
Comments
The policy is going to change, whether right-wing lunatic fringe judges like Scalia and Roberts like it or not.
Posted by: floccinaucinihilipilification | June 8, 2009 3:03 PM
The policy is going to change, whether right-wing lunatic fringe judges like Scalia and Roberts like it or not.
Posted by: floccinaucinihilipilification | June 8, 2009 3:03 PM
No...it's not! You can protest and throw your little temper tantrums all you want....but even liberals like Obama know the military is not the place for social experiments. Sorry.....you're barking up the wrong tree! Find some other institution to try and destroy...but keep quite if your in the military because the guy next to you doesn't want to hear about your twisted life!!!
Posted by: Joe | June 8, 2009 4:35 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: floccinaucinihilipilification | June 8, 2009 3:03 PM
.
The Court didn’t make up the policy, and they didn’t decide that it was a good policy. They merely left standing the decision of the lower courts. The decision not to hear the case is not a ruling on the merits, and has no value as precedent. In other words, the Court’s action was entirely non-action.
.
If you don’t like the policy, then you should complain to the White House, Congress, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. They are the ones who have insisted on booting gays and lesbians out of the military for overt homosexual behavior. That’s right: Barack Obama’s own Pentagon and DOJ have fought to keep up the policy, notwithstanding his promises to change it. Complain to them.
Posted by: John W. | June 8, 2009 5:40 PM
The policy is going to change, whether right-wing lunatic fringe judges like Scalia and Roberts like it or not.
Posted by: floccinaucinihilipilification | June 8, 2009 3:03 PM
Not commenting on the merits of the issue, but . . .
Right-wing?
The policy was instituted during the Clinton administration;
The federal appeals court in Boston rejected the suit;
The well-known right wingnut Barack Obama has not moved expeditiously to repeal the policy, despite his campaign rhetoric;
The article doesn't mention any justices by name, only that the Supremes declined to hear the case.
You're drawing conclusions on mighty skimpy evidence there, podner.
Posted by: antidisestablishmentarianism | June 8, 2009 5:56 PM
No...it's not! You can protest and throw your little temper tantrums all you want....but even liberals like Obama know the military is not the place for social experiments. Sorry.....you're barking up the wrong tree! Find some other institution to try and destroy...but keep quite if your in the military because the guy next to you doesn't want to hear about your twisted life!!!
Posted by: Joe | June 8, 2009 4:35 PM
.
So is that what the average knuckledragging Wingnut thinks of gay and lesbian people, Joey?
A "social experiment"?
Ha Ha Ha!....and you wonder why your Repug party is tanking faster than a toilet can fush?
By the way Joey, the last time your team Repug team was heard from regarding the military, you were doing what you do best - talking tough while hiding under your beds.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs
Posted by: Art Geko | June 8, 2009 6:42 PM
************
Barack Obama’s own Pentagon and DOJ have fought to keep up the policy, notwithstanding his promises to change it. Complain to them.
Posted by: John W. | June 8, 2009 5:40 PM
*************
Johnny W Bush,
Obama has already said that he's going to take DADT up with congress (he's kind of busy right now if you haven't noticed) so that DADT is permanently repealed, and so that the next time a bigoted Republican wins the White House (god forbid) they (you) can't just return DADT with a stroke of the pen.
Libertarians - cowards who are ashamed to call themselves Republicans.
Get a job, you loser
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | June 8, 2009 6:59 PM
So is that what the average knuckledragging Wingnut thinks of gay and lesbian people, Joey?
Answer: YES!!!!!!!
Posted by: Joe | June 8, 2009 7:39 PM
Yeah, that makes sense Unemployed Lawyer. If that's true, why doesn't Obama reverse it by executive order in the mean time? Until Congress acts? Whatever you do, don't hold him accountable for anything. When he flips, say he is being pragmatic. When he is obviously avoiding an issue like this one, the union bill, etc., say he has too much on his plate. You have too much invested and have drank way too much kool aid to consider being wrong on Obama at this point.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 8, 2009 8:09 PM
Yeah, that makes sense Unemployed Lawyer. If that's true, why doesn't Obama reverse it by executive order in the mean time? Until Congress acts? Whatever you do, don't hold him accountable for anything. When he flips, say he is being pragmatic. When he is obviously avoiding an issue like this one, the union bill, etc., say he has too much on his plate. You have too much invested and have drank way too much kool aid to consider being wrong on Obama at this point.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 8, 2009 8:09 PM
*****************
Obama has already addressed this and that is what he said he was going to do.
Obama isn't like the guy (Bush) that you wingnut deadenders lock-stepped with the last eight years, chucklehead.
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | June 8, 2009 8:23 PM
So is that what the average knuckledragging Wingnut thinks of gay and lesbian people, Joey?
Answer: YES!!!!!!!
Posted by: Joe | June 8, 2009 7:39 PM
.
Joey,
You're one of my favorite Repuglicans. You represent the average Repug perfectly - you're dumber than a bag of rocks and proud of it.
.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/weblog/2009/04/republicans-less-popular-than-venezuela.html
Posted by: Art Geko | June 8, 2009 8:33 PM
Joey,
You're one of my favorite Repuglicans. You represent the average Repug perfectly - you're dumber than a bag of rocks and proud of it.
Dumber???...apparently you do not even know how to spell Republican. And...I don't have to wait for a Supreme Court ruling to determine if I "fit in" and live in the main stream of America. Like I said before...stay away from the military. And while your at it...stay away from the Boy Scouts too!
Posted by: Joe | June 8, 2009 9:03 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | June 8, 2009 8:23 PM
.
Listen up, you obnoxious little cretin: Obama could have had DADT repealed the day after he took office. One could have written the bill to repeal DADT in less time than it takes you to pick your nose. It’s as easy as it gets. It wouldn’t take more than one page.
.
Moreover, neither the President nor anyone on his staff must write the bill themselves. In fact, the last time I read the Constitution, it’s Congress’ job to write legislation. The President only gets to propose legislation. Are you telling me, then, that Obama couldn’t have found someone in his compliant House majority to write a one-page bill long ago? That it hasn’t been done by now is pretty good proof that Obama is waffling on his promises.
.
Furthermore, lawyers in Obama’s very own DOJ (under Holder) actively opposed the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn DADT. Read, above, where the article stated:
.
“In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is ‘rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.’”
.
“Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.”
.
So it’s not simply that the Obama team hasn’t acted yet. They’ve acted by sticking a knife in the back of their gay and lesbian supporters. So, yeah, he has “already addressed this and that is what he said he was going to do.” The problem is that it is pure hypocrisy.
Posted by: John W. | June 8, 2009 9:47 PM
Gays can't be in the military, but they do inhabit high level cabinet positions and are in the House and Senate for years at a time. The Supreme Court is full of cowards. Also, is there any campaign promise that Obama has kept? Why not just call Obama a liar at this point? He is not the POTUS. He seems more like the LOTUS. Was Obama elected on lies? So, we are in a "war" based on lies. And, now, we have a new president based on lies. Good Lord--either a liar or a weakling in the WH. Either way--this all is so unmotivating and so unstimulating and so unchanging. Trillions of dollars stolen by both presidents--43 &44--and by the House and Senate--and American citizens have not one thing to show for the trillions and trillions. All the stolen trillions and trillions for nothing. Our forked-tongue "leaders" will now bail out more foreign banks and the IMF with our hard earned stolen money--money that we could have paid for medical procedures or mortgage payments or college tuition for ourselves. Our "leaders" talk about gayness and abortion so they do not have to make real decisions about our lives or the lives of our children. Why do all the politicians currently in office--and some who just left-- hate Americans? Vote the %astards out--all of them. And, make sure we never forget. Make sure their legacies are true and damaging to them, to their future happiness, and to the happiness of their offspring. ASK. TELL. ASK. TELL. THE. TRUTH.
Posted by: Vivian | June 8, 2009 11:31 PM
The right wing element on S Ct is afraid to take on this issue.They are retrenching.
Moderating some of the rhetoric, "deciding not to decide" things they, in happier, Reagan-era times, they wd. love to expound on.
Like Lewis Powell in that Georgia case.
Why?
They are afraid, very afraid of Obama.
He can change the whole face of the federal judiciary, with all the vacancies.
Not to mention, pass a Judiciary Act of 2009.
Right wing on S Ct cannot possible ride herd on all the liberals Obama is set to appoint.
He can, in a more subtle way, say: Let them enforce their decisions.
With a revamped judiciary, it will be possible to "interpret away" , "limit" , etc., any more extreme Scalian re-writings of the Constitution.
Plus, can't be sure Nino and Clarence will be around forever. Obama could have 4 more appointments.
So, for now, right wing on Ct. will lay back a bit, not come out with too many radical right opinions for awhile.
Posted by: Milton Friedman | June 9, 2009 9:59 AM
Americans are retarded! Yes I know that was not very PC of me but honestly why are you people so obsessed with sex in such a puritanical way! Most of your responses here are hysterical and so childish. Gays and lesbians have been serving in the US military forever! Some have been quiet some have not.Those who have not were discharged. What about the str8s who boast and flaunt their sexuality, I dont see them getting discharged! DADT is an archaic, bigoted and juvenile mandate and should be abolished. Most countries have abandoned their anti-gay policies because mental health professionals discovered that a homosexual orientation is normal, natural, fixed, and unchosen!!! Among the countries of the Western industrialized world that allow gays and lesbians to serve freely and with true honor are: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. GEt over the blue dress already everyone and let these people serve their country as free men! Get it, as FREE men!!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | June 9, 2009 11:17 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Milton Friedman | June 9, 2009 9:59 AM
.
1. I don’t think the “right-wing” element is “afraid” to take on the issue. Prior USSC cases, including Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), do not compel a different result than the one handed down by the courts below. Both Romer and Lawrence applied a “rational basis” scrutiny to statutes that were hostile toward gays and lesbians. DADT, on the other hand, was promoted as a means of maintaining military discipline rather than expressing hostility toward gays and lesbians. It doesn’t tale any more than that for a law to pass muster under the rational basis test. Thus, it is understandable why the Court didn’t think the case merited their further attention.
.
It’s just a fact that legislative action is going to be a better way for gays and lesbians to serve in the military without hiding. If Obama was true to his campaign promises, he would have pushed for repeal of the DADT by now. For him, that wouldn’t have been any labor or time intensive endeavor.
.
2. It is very unlikely that Obama is going to have many more appointments, much less appointments that are going to replace conservative members. The two Justices who are either the oldest or in the poorest health (Stevens and Ginsburg) are both members of the Court’s liberal wing. The next oldest are Scalia and Kennedy, but they have no known health problems and have not expressed any interest in retiring. The rest are in their 50s and 60s.
.
3. I disagree with your suggestion that Scalia has re-written the Constitution. He is very faithful to the original understanding of the Constitution. To the contrary, I can think of many examples off the top of my head where the “liberal” wing has taken scissors to the Constitution, and sometimes in a very nasty way. Go read the case of Kelo v. City of New London for a good example of this. In it, the so-called liberal members of the court emasculated the “taking clause” of the Fifth Amendment. I sure hope that case won’t survive as valid precedent for long.
.
4. Short of a threat from Obama to pack the court like FDR did, I don’t think Obama’s presidency is going to bend the Supreme Court in its views of the laws and Constitution.
Posted by: John W. | June 9, 2009 11:59 AM