13 September 2010

Making the appeal unappealing.

On Thursday, September 9, 2010, a federal judge presiding over Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S. & Gates held the military's gay ban violated the Constitution two distinct ways.

If the ruling stands, the federal law is unconstitutional, utterly void and without effect, unenforceable in any jurisdiction, and the ban on gay Americans serving in the U.S. military becomes an ugly part of American history.

Why President Obama had — on multiple occasions in addition to this case — dispatched squads of US attorneys to defend a law he'd often denounced and insisted he wanted repealed has never been clear. It's been "explained" vaguely as some "traditional" obligation to defend all U.S. laws. However, there is no actual legal obligation on the part of the executive to defend any particular law. Indeed, it would be a violation of his oath of office if he defended any law he believed to be unconstitutional. As a professor of Constitutional law, Obama certainly has personal knowledge of all of this.

Regardless of why Obama defended the law, his lawyers failed to carry their burden of proof, and he lost his case. Now, the only way this outrageously discriminatory dead law could be revived is if President Obama decides to appeal. Again, he bears no legal obligation to do so; any decision to appeal would be 100% discretionary.

If President Obama decides to use the power of his office to singlehandedly revive a dead, unconstitutional, discriminatory federal law via an unnecessary appeal, it is the same kind of gratuitous fascist homophobic bullshit we could get from any Republican or theocrat. It cannot be viewed in any other way.

Moreover, he is choosing to frag the LGBT community right before midterm elections.



Democrats, "you better think about the consequences of your actions."

0 chimed in: