Pentagon: We’ll Stop Enforcing DADT


Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.

Related Post Roulette

39 Responses

  1. Avatar North says:

    Amazing. Obama is somehow managing to take an issue where 2/3rd of the electorate support his supposed “fiercely desired” position and he’s somehow managing to turn this into a political disaster. His team is like a reverse Rumplestiltskin spinning political gold into straw.Report

  2. This is a question for Jason and North: If the next Presidential election were held tomorrow with Obama and Generic Republican X, would this turn of events make you any less likely to vote for Obama? I’m genuinely curious if this is going to hurt him or just be an unfortunate footnote that his supporters will have to try and forget when they pull the lever for him in 2 years.Report

  3. Avatar ThatPirateGuy says:

    So the republicans who filibustered the bill that would have ended it don’t count as supporting dadt.Report

  4. And it’s pretty embarrassing that Obama and his Justice Department are virtually the last people defending this misbegotten policy.

    Well, it took a conspiracy by President Obama and his Justice Department along with a pocketful of Republicans in the Senate.

    This is why we have an independent judiciary.Report

  5. Avatar Boegiboe says:

    Digging through the repeated bits of meaning around the press, it would appear that Obama thinks DADT is bad, but not unconstitutional. In other words, at the heart of his actions is Obama’s continuation of GWB’s campaign to expand the power of the executive by maintaining or increasing the tendency of the courts to defer to the President on military and other national security matters.

    This remains my biggest problem with Obama: He railed against GWB’s power grabs, but he has never passed up a chance to expand that power. The DADT mess is probably best understood only in that light, and not having to do with gay rights at all.Report

  6. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    He railed against GWB’s power grabs, but he has never passed up a chance to expand that power.

    Geez, I ‘d love to have a reason to disagree with you.Report

  7. Avatar gaylib says:

    “…pending the outcome of the Obama administration’s appeal. ”

    Not exactly. Only until the judge rules on their request to stay the injunction, and if she doesn’t, until they can appeal to the 9th district, which it almost certainly will. All of this will happen in the next couple days. The only reason they didn’t request the stay immediately was because they needed time for the DOD to write a 48 page pack of lies about how it would harm ongoing operations. And the DOD is hardly being magnamimous by not enforcing DADT, they are simply avoiding being charged with contempt for violating the injunction. DADT is dead right now. What Obama, his DOJ and the DOD is actually resurrecting it from the dead. Fierce Advocate? more like Fierce Adversary.

    And Mike from up there, you’re living in a fantasy world if you think Obama is going to get even 20% of the gay vote in ’12 (after getting 70% in ’08). He’s lost it. This was the last straw I believe. Only HRC beltway gays still think he’s their friend. He’s just guessing he doesn’t need us. We’ll see…Report

  8. Avatar MFarmer says:

    I’ve written several posts on my blog about how amazing it is that liberals haven’t utrned completely on Obama and the Democrat congress. Liberals should be looking for an alternative to the two party system as much as limited government conservatives. But, as it stands, they’re trapped, going down with the progressives and statist political whores.Report

  9. Avatar Scott says:

    It is very common for an administration to defend in court a law passed by congress even if they don’t agree with it. That is all the Obama admin is doing here.Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Scott says:


      As I already noted above, you’re wrong. He’s been remarkably selective about which cases he defends and which he lets go.Report

        • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to scott says:


          This post. Let me explain.

          You are right that the administration has a responsibility to try to defend all duly enacted laws in court — once.

          There is absolutely no obligation to fight every step of the way, and there never has been. Administrations have a fair amount of discretion after an initial attempt to defend the law.

          How has the administration used its discretion? It’s been very strange — they declined to appeal Witt (an earlier DADT case), but not Log Cabin Republicans.

          Even a “give every law one appeal” standard wouldn’t explain their behavior. It’s puzzling to me, and I can’t figure it out. Unless maybe they just have it in for the Log Cabin Republicans, which I suppose they might.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to scott says:

          @Jason Kuznicki, I don’t understand fighting against the Log Cabin Republicans, however.

          The “homosexual vote” (if there is such a thing) is primarily blue due to how alienating the Republicans have been since, oh, the Reagan years.

          I suspect that this is Obama is saying that he needs to shore up the vote with socially conservative blue voters… that is, had this case happened in December, Obama wouldn’t be doing this. Obama figures that alienating gay folks will cost him fewer votes come November (the whole “where else you gonna go?” thing) than alienating socially conservative democrats.

          At least that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.Report