Well...at least the assholes are consistent.
When the award-winning Crustybastard Action News Team last visited the mysterious case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, it was just after the federal district court held the military gay ban (10 USC §654) violated the Constitution in two different ways.
Subsequently, the Obama administration — which had argued the ban was perfectly rational and constitutionally sound — appealed the district court's decision, insisting that it bore some "duty" not only to defend every suit, but also to appeal every loss. As explained elsewhere here at The 'Bastard, the Department of Justice has no legal obligation to do so. As we saw just two days ago, when the administration decided to quit defending DOMA's §3, the DOJ effectively conceded lying about the existence of this duty to defend.
In making its appeal, the government argued that the court of appeals simply must issue a stay of the district court's decision, insisting the military would suffer “immediate harm” and “irreparable injury” if they couldn't keep discriminating against gays. The court of appeals just assumed the government's argument and granted the stay, keeping the unconstitutional ban in full legal effect.
It is worth noting that during the few days between the district court's decision and the appellate court's grant of the stay, 10 USC §654 was not in effect and chaos did not ensue. In fact, not a single incident was reported. Good order and discipline were maintained even in the absence of a discriminatory law! Imagine that.
Meanwhile, in the smoky back rooms of Congress, Obama's personally designated repeal point man Holy Joe Lieberman was predictably screwing gays by gutting the House repeal bill — a bill which contained antidiscrimination provisions — in favor of his own halfassed conditional repeal which contains no antidiscrimination provisions, and retains 10 USC §654 as controlling law unless and until all the conditions are met. Okay, and there's also a 60-day waiting period after that. The "waiting period" was the almost-dead Senator Robert Byrd's contribution to the so-called "repeal process"; allowing the old bigot's fetid, rotting corpse one final long pointless piss on some minority's civil rights. Such a fitting coda.
Anyway, the Lieberman Amendment was added to the Defense Authorization Act at the 11th hour and most of the Democrats congratulated themselves of their grand commitment to civil rights and the principles of equality, while most Republicans insisted we now almost certainly teeter on the cusp of pure anarchy, and surely deserve a divine smiting, because y'know...life is precious and God and the Bible or some such shit.
But remember — the gay ban still remains in full legal force because (a) the court of appeals granted the government's stay, and (b) the Lieberman Amendment conditions have not yet been met.
Which brings us to today.
For the second time this week, the Obama Administration, via the Department of Justice, has taken the position that can be fairly summarized as, "well, okay — this piece of antigay legislation that has been held unconstitutional probably really is unconstitutional — we'll give you that. But we still want to keep enforcing this unconstitutional law against gays."
Which causes my head to do this:
Because as any person who has taken one semester of Constitutional Law is well-aware, a law cannot be at once unconstitutional and enforceable.
Not even as applied exclusively to gays.
Remember when California emissions was an extra cost line item on the window sticker? [Interesting] - [image: Interesting] [link] [6 comments]
1 hour ago