Reply #37: Because Obama made a deal with the military that they would move slowly [View All]

[ruggerson]

and the military wants their "review" to be finished before the policy is killed.

They had what they thought was a political deal in place. The Congress would vote earlier on a bill that allowed the military to wait until December. And Obama and the military would get to strip out the anti discrimination language that was in the pre-compromise bill that the military found objectionable. Unfortunately, the Senate Republilcans had the votes to prevent cloture and the "compromise" repeal failed. Thus they were left hopoing they could get it done in the lame duck session.

Then, Judge Phillips threw a wrench into the mix. She not only declared DADT unconstitutional, she issued an injunction against the military nationwide and forced them to end it immediately.

Obama's DOJ does not have to appeal this, because it is widely accepoted that once a law has been found unconstitutional, an administration is not bound to defend it any longer.

My best guess (and no one but the inner circle as the WH truly knows this) is that Obama;s administration is appealing this, because they feel duty bound to the agreement he made with the Sec'y of Defense and other military leaders.

The problem is, the appeal could be upheld by the Ninth Circuit and the repeal could fail in the lame duck session and then the administration is not left with many options.

IMHO, Obama should have rolled with the punches, abandoned the deal with the armed forces, not ask for a stay nor purse an appeal and leave the lawd dead - as it is now.

Had he done that, he would have been free to issue an EO when the "review" comes in, and he could phase in the recommendations from the armed forces.

Instead, he's pursuing a path that is politically damaging, morally indefensible and could possibly end up with DADT being the law of the land for a lot longer than the American people want.