This Is Different, You See.
So the Obama administration is hinting it may appeal the courts’ decision to overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Writes Thoreau, about the appeal of the DOMA decision — another one Obama claims he’s against:
Somebody needs to tell Obama that while the executive branch might have a duty to try to make a reasonable effort to defend existing laws and policies from court challenges, if the courts rule against the administration, the administration is not under any obligation to lock horns with the 3rd branch all the way to the Supreme Court. Especially if the administration actually claims to oppose the law or policy in question. It’s one thing to make a good faith argument at the first stage of the battle, and another thing to continue fighting after the third branch rules the other way. When administrations disagree with Congress, they still pick and choose battles. When they disagree with the third branch, they can also pick and choose battles. And if they actually claim to agree with the decision of the third branch as a matter of policy, they should really take “yes” for an answer.
He’s absolutely right. But at this point the administration’s “claims to agree” look thinner and thinner.
Here’s what the administration seems to be moving toward: We agree that gays should be allowed to serve in the military openly. Just not by presidential order. And not by a court ruling either. It’s only right if Congress does it. Because, you know, this issue is totally unlike when Harry Truman — acting as Commander in Chief — integrated the armed forces racially. It’s also totally unlike when Barack Obama — yes, I Barack Obama, acting as Commander in Chief, through my Defense Secretary Robert Gates — approved of women serving on submarines. This is different.
It’s also unlike United States vs. Virginia, in which courts set antidiscrimination policy in a military environment. And finally, it’s unlike Witt v. Department of the Air Force, a case on the very same subject, which we decided not to appeal. This case? We need to appeal.
Honestly, I can’t think of a consistent justification here. Except that we’ll always say nice things to gay people, and then fight like hell whenever things go their way.
It’s just cowardice, astonishing levels of gutlessness. He’s actually against this damned thing unless Congress gives him cover. Has no one shown him the polling on this? I honestly don’t understand Obama’s incoherence on this. What on earth is he thinking?Report
@North, “God Bless America? GOD DAMN AMERICA!!!”Report
@Jaybird, bwa?Report
@North, that’s probably what he was thinking.
He did spend a lot of years at that church, you see. It must have been because he agreed with every sermon.Report
@North,
Ann Coulter thinks he did it because he is an atheist(ooo scary!) who needed to appear religious.Report
@North,
Exactly. The main reason I supported Obama over Hillary was that I knew the Clintons were gutless. Is there any Democrat who isn’t?Report
@Mike Schilling, Oddly enough Mike I would have thought Hillary would be better.
A: she hates republicans and probably would have relished a fight.
B: she didn’t have the “new hope, new way of politics” nonsense to the degree that Obama did.
C: she had very strong support from the gay community and the Clinton team’s always been big into rewarding allies.
But certainly while I cynically expected that Obama’s shtick was just marketing I’m quite astonished on just how deep down the marketing went.Report
@Mike Schilling, The Clintons are gutless in a much more tactically intelligent way. They don’t do anything unless they know it will be popular enough to embarass the hell out of people who oppose it. But they’re experts at presenting things in a way that makes their opponents look bad. That’s the Clinton version of triangulation – you work out where there’s hight ground, stand on it, and throw rotten vegetables at the people below you until they cooperate. If someone else is already on the high ground, you pretend to be friends with them then push them off. Its not very pretty, and its certainly not principled, but it is at least smart and it gets things done.
The Obama version lack the tactical nous – He’s finding the high ground, attempting to stand on it and then getting pelted with rotten fruit until he had to back down.Report
@Simon K, This (the Obama version of traingulation) is a basic misunderstanding of the role of the Presidency in making legislation. The President is there to set the terms of debate the legislators have to deal with. If he doesn’t do that – if he “respects congress’s prerogatives” – he can’t do anything and they spend all their time squabbling.Report
@North, The Obama Administration – we don’t do anything we can’t get every Democrat in the house and at least one Republican in the senate to agree with up-front.Report
“What on earth is he thinking?”
Occam’s razor: he is a bigot and a homophobe.Report
@gaylib,
Why not just “he’s a politician”? One implication of Occam’s Razor is that we should never invoke new premises when the ones before us can do all the work we require of them.
Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be a bigot — back as a state senator, he even supported same-sex marriage — but he is totally spineless, a trait we fully expect of politicians.Report
@Jason Kuznicki, I’m with Jason. “Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to simple stupidity or cowardice.”Report
@North, why not both?Report
I was thinking about this one yesterday in the context of racial integration of the military. When Lincoln allowed blacks to serve in the Union army it gave them momentum towards full citizenship as many felt they could no longer deny it after they had fought on the Union’s behalf. 80 years later there was a similar scenario after blacks returned home from WWII which gave momentum to the civil rights movement. In both cases it was a Presidential order which eventually lead to positive changes on the domestic front.
I won’t speculate on how ending DOMA might strengthen the case for gay marriage, but it will certainly help gays gain acceptance in mainstream society in the longrun.Report
@Mike at The Big Stick, You’re absolutely right in my opinion Mike. Especially with regards to marriage it’s going to be difficult to have the government offer no option for marriage to legal openly gay war heroes.Report
@North, I disagree on this leading to gay marriage – but I don’t want to muddy this conversation. DOMA is a separate issue IMO.Report
@Mike at The Big Stick, Oh okay, fair enuff.Report
The comments section at the linked post is interesting reading. Commenter Katja makes a good point about a combination of the right plaintiff in the right court with the right President–three people–being able to overturn Congress. Maybe it is a defect in the Constitution, as she says.Report
@Boegiboe, that is not a defect in our Constitution. It is one of the principal reasons to admire it. No one is above the law, and the system has an effective and legitimate way of legally sorting out disagreements about what the law is.Report
@Boegiboe,
Another necessary ingredient is that the legislation being overturned be pointless. If overturning DADT were actually injuring anyone, they’d have standing to sue.Report