Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its about time. Im stunned a first world country had such a ridiculous rule, and i was embarrased it took them as long as it did here!

I had to sign a form saying i wasnt gay when i joined the corps in 1999 so.. when did we do it? 2001?

Seriously, what possible downside is there to gay men in the military? :S

mattyrm wrote:Its about time. Im stunned a first world country had such a ridiculous rule, and i was embarrased it took them as long as it did here!

I had to sign a form saying i wasnt gay when i joined the corps in 1999 so.. when did we do it? 2001?

Seriously, what possible downside is there to gay men in the military? :S

Beer gets replaced with quality wine?
what else...(warning-blatant stereotyping)
better uniforms: not a problem.
better food: sounds awesome
occasional hilarious catfights: great as long as the popcorn doesn't run out.
same amount of manly men blowing crap up on screen? ok cool
Nope can't think of one.


Again, my issue is not with the rule, but how a judge doing it.

I'm sure this will be appealed, as it should, because something this important needs to go through the whole process to have any legitimacy.

Don't be so sure. It's up to Obama now, and he wants DADT ended.

That said, legitimacy is exactly what I'm talking about. Have Congress pass the law. Then it's on the up and up. That's exactly what I have such a problem with this ruling. It's saying that our laws are wrong even as the laws are being fixed.

Overturning unconstitutional legislation is good for the country and the process.

It's "good" in the way it's good to get a bullet wound treated and bandaged. Which is to say it's making the best of a bad situation.

Also, the SCOTUS (and most appellate courts), are rapidly becoming exposed as little more than partisan battlegrounds. Judges are not basing their interpretations on impartial logic and examination, but instead on the ideologigcal motivations of their politcal patrons.

So it's more like getting a bullet wound treated by a quack doctor.

It's not good.

Sounds like a catch-22 to me - if they wait to see if congress resolves it and/or if lower courts deal with it, that takes time.

It doesn't take 17 years to get something up to the SCOTUS. If it's wrong when it's passed, and somebody cares, it can get there within a couple years. The exception is the rare edge condition where you need a plaintiff, and they don't come along very often, etc. etc. This isn't that case, there are plenty of people willing to try it.

But, until now, nobody bothered, because they know it's not actually unConstitutional.

Also, you're taking my comments out of context of time. I wasn't saying "wait for Congress to act" in 1993, I'm saying it NOW. When they created DADT in 1993, I'd fully agree, the only option for removal is litigation. It was a product of the outlook of the time, sentiment in Congress won't change overnight.

So, why didn't they it overturned in 1993? Cause they knew they'd lose. If they knew that then, why should they be able to win now? Did precedent change? No. Public opinion has changed... And since when should public opinion effect the outcome of a legal finding? Since never.

All this does is prove that our courts are not impartial, are political entities, and now are replacing the proper legislative process.

It's exceedingly destructive to our system.

Phryxis wrote:But, regardless, I didn't know the polling was so positive for repeal. It does make one wonder why the Dems are so scared to press the issue.

A large part is that the Democrats really are very useless. The other part is just politics and the maths of voting - there's little drive to support gay issues because the Democrats don't fear losing the gay vote - what are they going to do - vote Republican? Sure, they're making efforts on DADT now... 17 years after it was put in place and more than decade since it became very clear it wasn't working as intended, but it's a stilted effort at best.

It's a little like the Republicans making a whole lot of noise about abortion, but when they're in power they do exactly nothing about the issue.

Well, that's my point, right? Not meant to be weird, meant to show that fundamental choices our society has made can come and go at the stroke of a gavel. That's fundamentally undemocratic, and contrary to the core principles of our system. We should be having these things go through debate, in public, on the floor of the House and Senate. We should have elected officials putting their votes on these issues.

It depends on the issue. There are things guaranteed by your constitution, and a law that takes those things away from people would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately exactly what those things are, and what they aren't isn't that clear.

But I do get what you're saying, that judges should be aware of the problems of legislating from the bench, and be extremely reluctant to strike down laws.

It would be much better if DADT was removed by congress, not overturned by the bench. Which, funnily enough, is the approach being taken by Obama. He's going to fight the ruling, but at the same time he's pushing congress to repeal DADT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:I think everyone is a little confused as to what DADT entails. You can be seen in any number of homosexual situations, from gay bars to pride parades, and you can even possess gay pornography, but you have to demonstrate a propensity for homosexual conduct before the military can do anything about it. So, basically unless you get caught performing homosexual acts or attempt to marry someone of the same sex the military can't put you out for being gay. I'm talking about definite proof (i.e. pictures, multiple eyewitnesses etc.) before the military can or will do anything about it.

Unfortunately that isn't how it actually works in practice. Look up the story of Danny Hernandez, who became concerned that his sexuality might be revealed by some marines he got into an argument with in a bar - so he told two fellow servicemen about his problem. That was enough to have him discharged.

If DADT operated anything like you'd argue, it wouldn't be half the problem it is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:From personal experience the practice of DADT is even more lenient than the letter of the law, but that's just what I've seen in the places I've been. I'm sure other units dealt with things differently.

The army is big and experiences will differ greatly. And there are thousands of stories of people being discharged under DADT for nothing more than telling one person in confidence, or being spotted in a bar by the wrong person.

Phryxis wrote:But, until now, nobody bothered, because they know it's not actually unConstitutional.

If you think that the law is not actually unconstitutional, then argue that. What you said was that since it had been in place for 17 years, it shouldn't be overturned now, and that since congress was looking at changing it, the SC should wait for congress to change it. If the law is unconstitutional, then whether it's been in place 1 year or 17 years it should be overturned. If it's not, then it shouldn't even if it's new.

Phryxis wrote:
But, come on... If it's REALLY unConstitutional, how come it hasn't been found as such for the past 17 years?

Because a case involving it never came up for review before a judge who thought it was unconstitutional.

Phryxis wrote:
Overturning legislation via judicial review is BAD for the country and for the process. When it happens it suggests that our lawmakers are not capable of writing valid laws.

Strictly speaking, it isn't their responsibility to write valid laws. It is their responsibility to write laws, and the responsibility of the court to determine whether or not they are valid.

Phryxis wrote:
When it happens it fundamentally undermines the will of the people, and the democratic process.

So? Why is democracy inherently good? It doesn't necessarily produce positive outcomes, on any level. Just look at California, and their ballot initiatives.

Why should politicians, judges, and other members of the state apparatus allow 'the people' to make stupid decisions that they believe will have a negative impact on the nation; especially when they aren't required to do so?

Remember, "will of the people" is rhetoric, not reality. No successful state in the history of the world has ever followed the "will of the people" to the exclusion of all other concerns. The one's that attempt to do so aren't states for very long; notice most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Phryxis wrote:
...the more our democracy decays, and becomes a dictatorship of 7 judges.

It isn't a dictatorship of 7 judges, as the judges never write laws. They can overturn laws, as was done here, but they can't write them. That's what happens when you live in a liberal democracy, the rule of law has final say.

dogma wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
When it happens it fundamentally undermines the will of the people, and the democratic process.

So? Why is democracy inherently good? It doesn't necessarily produce positive outcomes, on any level. Just look at California, and their ballot initiatives.

There are also fundamentally flawed representative governments out there that are flawed, such as the Weimar Republic of the 1920's Germany. Thanks to the mechanisms of government enacted by that body, they allowed Adolf Hitler to literally dissolve the mechanisms of government from within.

WarOne wrote:
There are also fundamentally flawed representative governments out there that are flawed, such as the Weimar Republic of the 1920's Germany. Thanks to the mechanisms of government enacted by that body, they allowed Adolf Hitler to literally dissolve the mechanisms of government from within.

Mexico is another good example.

An inverse example, involving an authoritarian state that was actually quite benign, would be military Brazil.

dogma wrote:

WarOne wrote:
There are also fundamentally flawed representative governments out there that are flawed, such as the Weimar Republic of the 1920's Germany. Thanks to the mechanisms of government enacted by that body, they allowed Adolf Hitler to literally dissolve the mechanisms of government from within.

Mexico is another good example.

An inverse example, involving an authoritarian state that was actually quite benign, would be military Brazil.

The lesson I suppose is the intent of the government. If the government looks out for its people, then it would benefit the people. If the government does not look out for its people, then it would not benefit the people.

This also assumes the government does not have any alterior motives, is truthful about what it does, and is run perfectly. As we all know, the only perfect government is found on NationStates.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=list_nations

If you think that the law is not actually unconstitutional, then argue that.

Actually I think that the debate is semi-irrelevant, because this stuff is not based on Constitutionality, it's based on politcal possiblity. I'm sure decent arguments can be made both ways. What matters in the end is who has more justices on the SCOTUS.

Strictly speaking, it isn't their responsibility to write valid laws. It is their responsibility to write laws, and the responsibility of the court to determine whether or not they are valid.

Strictly speaking? There's really no strictly speaking here, there's just "rules as intended." The "rules as intended" of the founding fathers were that lawmakers would write the laws, would understand the laws they were writing, and there you go.

I think, on some level, they recognized that it was all politics, suit and tie or robe and gavel. At the end of the day, somebody is gonna say what the law is, and if people listen, that's the law.

Only after Marbury vs Madison did the concept of judicial review even arise. And, even with that process now well established, I still think lawmakers are expected to write valid laws, to have legal counsel assist them in doing so. They don't throw it at the wall, and hope the SCOTUS can't peel it back off (or shouldn't, at least).

So? Why is democracy inherently good?

It's not necessarily "good" so much as "part of our system." If our system is going to be that we're ruled by appointed judges, let's at least formalize that process, and say in an official way "we're going to dispense with the sham of elections and go to something new."

We've got a system. It's not working as it's supposed to. That's bad. Either fix it, or formally acknowledge the new system.

They can overturn laws, as was done here, but they can't write them.

Technically, maybe. In practice, they can do a lot, and it borders on actually "writing a law." Certainly, they can't actually author the laws, but they can produce findings (and thus precedent) that have impacts very similar to legislation. Also, since they're effectively the "last step" in the process, their rulings have a lot of staying power.

Plus, even if they can only overrule laws, that sounds a lot like the veto power of the President. It's a pretty huge power to grant somebody that's not elected.

Phryxis wrote:
Strictly speaking? There's really no strictly speaking here, there's just "rules as intended." The "rules as intended" of the founding fathers were that lawmakers would write the laws, would understand the laws they were writing, and there you go.

I'm not particularly interested in the intent of the Founders. I'm interested in how our government functions now.

Moreover, if the Founders really did expect the legislative body to write laws and determine the consistency of those laws with respect to the Constitution, then, well, they were stupidly naive.

Phryxis wrote:
Only after Marbury vs Madison did the concept of judicial review even arise. And, even with that process now well established, I still think lawmakers are expected to write valid laws, to have legal counsel assist them in doing so. They don't throw it at the wall, and hope the SCOTUS can't peel it back off (or shouldn't, at least).

Well, if they really want their laws to stand, then they will write valid laws; though then we have to ask questions regarding what legislators want. And, while legislators don't simply throw bills together and depend on SCOTUS to assess their consistency with the Constitution, it has to be noted that there is no particular reason that Congress absolutely has to adhere to the Constitution if there is no body to ensure that it does.

Phryxis wrote:
It's not necessarily "good" so much as "part of our system." If our system is going to be that we're ruled by appointed judges, let's at least formalize that process, and say in an official way "we're going to dispense with the sham of elections and go to something new."

I don't think that we're being ruled by appointed judges. I think we're being ruled by a regime based on popular representation in which the judiciary is granted a lot of power.

Phryxis wrote:
We've got a system. It's not working as it's supposed to. That's bad. Either fix it, or formally acknowledge the new system.

That's rarely how governmental systems work. Usually the powers that be will label their behavior in a way that is designed to appeal to the populace, and then interpret the meaning of that label over time. Its really just a symptom of the vague terminology used in naming states. Ask 10 people what 'democracy' means, and you'll get 10 answers; at least if you ask 10 well educated people.

Phryxis wrote:
Plus, even if they can only overrule laws, that sounds a lot like the veto power of the President. It's a pretty huge power to grant somebody that's not elected.

Sure, and I'm not sure it bothers me. Its not as though anyone really believes that the President, or even members of the legislative body, are freely determined by the people.

Phryxis wrote:
Strictly speaking? There's really no strictly speaking here, there's just "rules as intended." The "rules as intended" of the founding fathers were that lawmakers would write the laws, would understand the laws they were writing, and there you go.

I think, on some level, they recognized that it was all politics, suit and tie or robe and gavel. At the end of the day, somebody is gonna say what the law is, and if people listen, that's the law.

I have always wondered at the God Like Authority some Americans grant their founding fathers. Now it maybe the fact that at least one of my nation's founding fathers was a drunken joker on the take, but when I examine the history of your founding father's I don't think perfection is a word I would choose. Heck even the amendments that have been made suggest the document is not a perfect thing.

Really I'm just wondering if the intent of the founding fathers is the only relevant factor in your decision making it seems pointless to ever change anything.


And on an unrelated note I'm digging my new title.

Moreover, if the Founders really did expect the legislative body to write laws and determine the consistency of those laws with respect to the Constitution, then, well, they were stupidly naive.

I don't think that makes them stupidly naive. The thing is, when you've got a government and people writing laws, eventually it comes down to somebody deciding if it's valid or not. That process is ALWAYS political. So you can say that it's "naive" to expect lawmakers to objective, to which I'd reply that it's naive to expect ANYONE to be objective, judge, lawmaker, President, whomever...

So it's really NOT naive to expect lawmakers to write Constitutionally consistent/valid laws, it's actually accepting reality. If people are not willing to act in good faith, or are incompetent, there is no system that can overcome it.

it has to be noted that there is no particular reason that Congress absolutely has to adhere to the Constitution if there is no body to ensure that it does.

I guess it's nice to have an "official" step in the process that is understood to assure that adherance, that's true. But, at the same time, it's fully understood that lawmakers should be writing laws in accordance with the Constitution. That was the intention. So, while I agree it's nice to have a formal "review of Constitutionality" step in the process, I don't think that step actually accomplishes that goal.

More practically, what that step accomplishes, is "whichever political party has held the White House for most of the preceding lifetime gets an extra chance to stop the law."

I think we're being ruled by a regime based on popular representation in which the judiciary is granted a lot of power.

I agree, I'm just identifying an upsetting drift even further towards "lot of power" into "ridiculous amount of power" and with the possibility of "actually ruling."

Perhaps the trend isn't as pronounced as I think it is... After all, Marbuy vs Madison was 200 years ago, and that was a HUGE power grab by the judiciary, but I'm still concerned. Our government has become more and more gridlocked, less and less capable of actually producing real legislation. It worries me that we're starting to resort to court cases to get legislation done, rather than the actual legislative process.

That's rarely how governmental systems work.

I agree, I'm just saying, let's not be "average" let's do a better job. If we're going to change the rules, let's be affirmative that we're doing it, externalize that decisionmaking process. Really it's one of the few universal positives one can ask of a government. All systems have their own pros and cons, but transparency and accountability are two qualities that can be expected of any form of government.

Its not as though anyone really believes that the President, or even members of the legislative body, are freely determined by the people.

Define "freely?" I mean, I think that Barack Obama got more votes than McCain in the last election. I'm sure that there is always some cheating going on, but I also think it probably washes out for the most part. That equals "freely" to me.

I have always wondered at the God Like Authority some Americans grant their founding fathers.

We've probably discussed this here before, but basically, for me, it comes down to this: the American FFs set things in motion that led to the creation of a very powerful, very successful nation. I don't think they're perfect, I don't think they're anything more than men, but I do think we have the winning record of their creation to look upon as proof that they understood things more clearly than their contemporaries.

I don't think their words/ideas/laws are beyond reproach, but I do think that anytime anybody wants to suggest they've got a better idea, it's important to understand that NOBODY has the 200 years of success to back them up that the FFs do.

I'm just wondering if the intent of the founding fathers is the only relevant factor in your decision making it seems pointless to ever change anything.

I'm not saying it's pointless to change anything. Don't mistake any of this for me having an opinion on DADT. I actually don't care what happens with it. I'm conflicted between gay's rights and the need of the military to run itself as its leadership sees fit. There are different rules for servicemen than there are for civillians, and you aren't treated the same. If they repeal it, fine. If they don't, also fine.

What I object to is the disorderly conduct of government. We have processes for enacting legislation. We have safeguards in place to prevent that legislation from being broken. I don't like it when the safeguard becomes the process. It's like running your Millenium Falcon on backup power all the time. It makes Chewbacca upset.

Phryxis wrote:
I don't think that makes them stupidly naive. The thing is, when you've got a government and people writing laws, eventually it comes down to somebody deciding if it's valid or not. That process is ALWAYS political. So you can say that it's "naive" to expect lawmakers to objective, to which I'd reply that it's naive to expect ANYONE to be objective, judge, lawmaker, President, whomever...

Absolutely, I'm simply saying that objectivity isn't relevant; splitting of powers is.

Phryxis wrote:
So it's really NOT naive to expect lawmakers to write Constitutionally consistent/valid laws, it's actually accepting reality. If people are not willing to act in good faith, or are incompetent, there is no system that can overcome it.

Sure. But, you can create systems that encourage good faith through leverage. There is no reason for Congress to act in good faith without the judiciary to kick their ass if they don't.

Phryxis wrote:
I guess it's nice to have an "official" step in the process that is understood to assure that adherance, that's true. But, at the same time, it's fully understood that lawmakers should be writing laws in accordance with the Constitution. That was the intention. So, while I agree it's nice to have a formal "review of Constitutionality" step in the process, I don't think that step actually accomplishes that goal.

What would? More importantly, what would be better?

Phryxis wrote:
More practically, what that step accomplishes, is "whichever political party has held the White House for most of the preceding lifetime gets an extra chance to stop the law."

Is that bad?

Phryxis wrote:
It worries me that we're starting to resort to court cases to get legislation done, rather than the actual legislative process.

Take to the streets. That's what our fiery Latin brethren do.

Phryxis wrote:
All systems have their own pros and cons, but transparency and accountability are two qualities that can be expected of any form of government.

Tell that to the PRI.

Phryxis wrote:
Define "freely?" I mean, I think that Barack Obama got more votes than McCain in the last election. I'm sure that there is always some cheating going on, but I also think it probably washes out for the most part. That equals "freely" to me.

I'm going to segway this a bit, but I promise that it will be relevant.

Is Mexico a democracy?

There is no reason for Congress to act in good faith without the judiciary to kick their ass if they don't.

In theory, bad performers could be voted out. In practice, they get around this by all being bad performers.

Also, while I get what you're saying, I would point out that one can just kick the can down the road and say that there's no reason for the judiciary to act in good faith. And, given that they're in for life, and will be removed only under the direst of circumstances, they're almost TOTALLY unaccountable.

It's not a bad system to give everyone a piece of the puzzle of control, and then force them all to show up with their pieces in order to make anything. Sorta a nuclear key type arrangement.

Is that bad?

My line of reasoning is going to be pretty consistent on these types of questions: it's bad to run a system in a way besides the way you've committed to running it.

The judiciary is intended to provide objective review of the legality of legislation. That's what we said they're for, that's what they're supposed to be for. Instead they're basically just another layer partisanship, which is created over a different slice of time. I think that's bad.

Is Mexico a democracy?

Nominally, yes.

To some extent, yes. Within certain scopes, they are capable of asserting the control of their democratically elected government.

In other regions, they've lost control, and are being dominated by drug cartels. In these areas, they're more of a kleptocracy, or narco state or something.

They're bordering on a failed state. I'm not sure they'll ever go over that edge, but they're fairly close.

I fear that you're getting more into semantics than into politics.

Is there much evidence of political bias on the part of judges in the US?

UK judges are fairly apolitical on the whole, despite the rather non-transparent way they are appointed, and the fact they all come from what you might call "The Establishment".

Kilkrazy wrote:Is there much evidence of political bias on the part of judges in the US?

Political bias no. Fundamental beliefs, yes. If you put a Conservative on the bench, he will lean right. Same goes for Liberal for the left.

As a function of pandering to political parties, it becomes coincidence that they may side with a particular party simply because their ideologies are consistent.

And the majority of judges actually use U.S. law for determining court rulings. Very few may up the law.

That is probably the best you can expect from the imperfectibility of mankind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suspect too, that judges while leaning left or right, are simply not as extremely leftist or rightist as the more extreme politicians, social commentators and activists on either wing.

I don't understand what the huge deal is if there are gays in the military, only 1% of the population is willing to day in and day out put thier lives on the line and perform selfless acts for thier nation. Why would doing those things be frowned apon if someone is gay?

Gays in the military is a great thing anyway, if im in stuck in a trench hiding from enemy mortars i would want a gay delta force to come and back me up because they literally want to save my ass

Nice "out of the box" thinking there!

I'm assuming that you are a guy and you mean gay men Delta Force.

Yes, and i can't stress enough how fabulously badass a gay male delta force would be. Ascots, ascots as far as the eye can see...

Phryxis wrote:
In theory, bad performers could be voted out. In practice, they get around this by all being bad performers.

Well, we have to be reasonable after all. The system isn't designed to reward legislators who take things away from their constituents. Hence the generally high approval of individual legislators, and the low approval of the legislature.

Phryxis wrote:
Also, while I get what you're saying, I would point out that one can just kick the can down the road and say that there's no reason for the judiciary to act in good faith. And, given that they're in for life, and will be removed only under the direst of circumstances, they're almost TOTALLY unaccountable.

That's why there are 7 of them, and the process of appointment is intensely political.

Phryxis wrote:
My line of reasoning is going to be pretty consistent on these types of questions: it's bad to run a system in a way besides the way you've committed to running it.

The judiciary is intended to provide objective review of the legality of legislation. That's what we said they're for, that's what they're supposed to be for. Instead they're basically just another layer partisanship, which is created over a different slice of time. I think that's bad.

Ok, we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm not the sort of person that is overly concerned with labeling, so I'm pretty comfortable with a system becoming what it isn't over time.

Phryxis wrote:
Nominally, yes.

To some extent, yes. Within certain scopes, they are capable of asserting the control of their democratically elected government.

In other regions, they've lost control, and are being dominated by drug cartels. In these areas, they're more of a kleptocracy, or narco state or something.

I don't know that they've lost control. The Mexican government isn't in danger of collapsing. I think its more a matter of being indifferent to the cartels because the cartels don't really try to maki life difficult for the state.

Phryxis wrote:
They're bordering on a failed state. I'm not sure they'll ever go over that edge, but they're fairly close.

I fear that you're getting more into semantics than into politics.

Maybe, but what I was trying to get at is the degree to which committing to a certain sort of government isn't necessarily relevant to the reality of running a state. Mexico is a democracy, but its also deeply authoritarian. The President has near total power when he is in office, and the PRI has near total power over who becomes President. The current head of state aside (he's a member of the opposition) in nearly all past cases the PRI candidate has won. As a result, despite claims to democracy, Mexico leans heavily on a plutocratic model through the partisan apparatus of the PRI.

The US is much the same. Because the Republicrats have so much power over who is and is not elected, the state apparatus is little more than a godhood for their godhead. This may seem inappropriate, but from my position it just looks like the way government works. We may take steps to make the people feel included, but ultimately its all about what the elites want to do, and the method by which the powerful coerce them into agreeing to ceding authority.

There could be a way.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/