Judge tosses Log Cabin Republicans Don't Ask Don't Tell lawsuit

http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/dadt_032906.html



http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/dadt_032906.html

On the one hand, this sounds right to me. If you cannot identify the plaintiffs, it does not belong in a courthouse. In such a case, it seems you should fight this in the legislature. Congress can, after all, change the rules for how the military operates (within the limits of the President's power as CinC, of course.)

On the other hand, it is clear enough why the plaintiffs prefer anonymity, given that they are certain to face retaliation. It's not even illegitimate retaliation, as the laws they are challenging - meaning they're in place now - mandate their exclusion if they reveal they are gay.

Anyway, looks like LCR is refiling, so I guess they have some soldiers willing to go on record. Good for them,

R. Garrett

are not subject to the Prez power as CinC, they are enshrined in the Constitution without limitation as to when, therefore they are in effect at all times.

The powers outlined for the Commander in Chief have to be activated, if you will, by Congressional Declaration of War and only involve the operational elements.

The Prez powers are not the supreme powers for the military outlined in the Constitution - Congress' are.

Gay Republicans.

Black Republicans.

Any Minority Republicans.

Christian Republicans.

If these groups really do exist, are they stupid, or what? The Republican Party is so anti-gay, anti-black, anti-minority, anti-Christian I don't see how anyone who's sane would be a member. Am I missing something?

I just don't get it! :shrug:

they have a large oven. The party of crime, hate and intolerance. I do however understand how today's "christian conservatives" are onboard with the gop. They are full of hate, meanness and ignorance.

Oh, Dear, was that French? A thousand pardons!

Gay Repubes get screwed again...taking it up the ass from the Repug party is nothing new to them...happens all the time!

political capitol on securing THEIR civil rights.
It's win/win for those loathsome dirtbag$

but why are they so fucktarded?

When a 12 year old plays chess, he anticipates moves and countermoves so that he can reach an objective with the fewest moves, or by revealing the fewest weaknesses.

How is it that a legal eagle can't think one step into the future? Now they've wasted financial resources on the first filing, shown themselves as barely legally competent to attempt this and possibly blown the goodwill of the plaintiffs.

Preparation and strategy and alternative strategies are 99.999 percent of any regulated fight.

Respectfully --

They are obviously angling for the right to present "Don't Ask -- Don't Tell" cases with a number of John Does -- perhaps a large number -- rather than outing more gay military personnel. The "lack of association" rejection, based on a White House counsel's motion, requires that the court ignore the possibility that public exposure would result in injury to the group and its members, no matter that some or all of them may have forgone previous anonymity. The court has violated its own criteria for establishing legal standing as discussed in the ruling, and takes considerable pains to justify its ruling, throwing in the proverbial kitchen sink. Appealing this ruling on the grounds of fundamental legal standing would likely be the next step, and using the original denial as prima facie evidence of prejudice may be possible, depending on the court and the circumstances. The have until April 28th to re-file and/or appeal.

PageOneQ has a copy of the ruling, LCR v USA and Donald H. Rumsfeld, NO. CV 04-8425 GPS (Ex), Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. (Although the link is good, I am not sure I cited this properly -- corrections are welcomed!)

Forcing plaintiffs to be listed under their legal names, rather than to file as John Doe(s), has been a major tactic used to discourage taking action against this rule. Although we can agree it has gotten gay servicemembers considerable relief, it is still an unjust situation that must be remedied. Just as racists have had to accomodate themselves to working with black servicemembers, so too will homophobes have to learn how to live with gays.

Although I do consider the possibility that the LCR made an error here, it could also well be a feint designed to increase the number of plaintiffs and/or the pressure on the military.

I have not followed most of these cases closely, but what I have read indicates that they are in it for the long haul -- and intend to win.

--p!

you're making too much sense now.

:hi:

thanks for the different POV - I agree it could have been a feint, in fact in light of what you said, was very likely a feint.

Just the same, I still have a deep and abiding dislike of the LCR - it feels like betrayal to our community, since in essence in the vote on virtually any topic besides gay issues, every politically active LCR member cancels the vote of every active Stonewall Democrat. On the whole, I just don't trust them to make brilliant choices after they voted twice for GWB.

It's like having anti-abortion Democrats and pro-choice Democrats voting on choice. They cancel each other out and what will hopefully be a minority of socially conservative Republicans will still get their way.

no?

:shrug:

They support the Repukes so they can be part of the big-boy business network, knowing that the poor Democrats are going to have to spend all of their hard-earned money to protect their basic rights and freedoms.

And what to the Logjam Rethugnicans rally behind?

The right of gay people to fight and die for their country.

"Go, forth gay Democrats and die for your country while we reap the rewards of our taxbreaks for the rich!"

Where were they on gay marriage?

Log Cabin Republicans make me want to puke.

:puke: