Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Stay10.20.10
Less than one week ago, a U.S. District Court Judge struck down the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy disallowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Now, the Obama Administration said that they would ask for a stay since Judge Virginia Phillip refused to suspend her ruling that the 17-year-old policy was unconstitutional. All this while simultaneously saying that they disagree with DADT.
Huh? Perhaps this snippet from ABC News can explain it:
The administration has argued that it disagrees with the policy, but that it should be repealed legislatively and not through the courts.
So, it’s now up to the executive branch to decide whether the judicial branch can make a decision on something? Talk about expanding the presidential powers. By that reasoning, what’s the point of even bringing a lawsuit to the high courts? Might as well just write a letter to the sitting president and ask first if you can bring this case forward. It’s even more frustrating that this is coming from Obama, who announced in his State of the Union address that he wanted to repeal the DADT law yet now that it’s essentially been done, he’s trying to stop it from being so.
Who cares if a wrong is righted by the courts or by the legislature? Is one truly better than the other?
Well, some on the right consider this to be an act of a liberal, activist judge, in line with a huge push to the left against the will of the people – which would argue that yes, the legislature is better.
“Judge Virginia A. Phillips‘s brazen and error-strewn ruling in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States provides a useful case study of the all-too-familiar phenomenon of liberal judicial activism — in brief, the wrongful judicial overriding of a democratic enactment in order to advance the agenda of the Left,” Ed Whelan of the National Review wrote.
Wrongful judicial overriding. Since when is making a ruling based on the Consitutionality of a law wrongful or overriding? The judicial branch is a check and balance to the legislature, so that the laws that they sign pass the test of the law of the land: the U.S. Constitution. Even if a majority of people vote on something, if it doesn’t jive with the first and fifth amendments (as in this case), it can’t be law. Whelan should understand this since he’s clearly supportive of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision which also involved the first amendment. If that right extends to corporations, why not to gay soldiers?
But that coming from Whelan is no surprise. It’s ridiculous coming from Obama. The whole courts vs. congress argument feels forced — like they want to be able to say they tried to block it while saying they supported its repeal. I mean, who is that going to please? No one.
I love that Judge Phillip’s refused to suspend her ruling despite the president asking her to. She’s standing by her decision as well she should. It’s nice to see some intellectual honesty somewhere these days.