Ted Olsen on DADT appeal

[hugo_from_TN]

"It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law," said former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge of California's ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state attorney general have both declined to defend the law in court.

"I don't know what is going through the administration's thought process on 'don't ask, don't tell,'" Olson said. "It would be appropriate for them to say 'the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dont-debate-obama-administrations-legal-defense-gay-ban/story?id=11928405&page=1">'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Is Obama Administration Bound to Defend Law it Opposes?

[Touchdown]

1. Good for Ted.

Helping put Bush in office or not, he's redeeming himself in my eyes now.

[LawnLover]

6. Wow, you're forgiving.

The simple fact is that NO ADMINISTRATION would have let this go by without an appeal.

[Touchdown]

8. Not buying it.

But keep reaching for that star. You might fool somebody.

[sabrina 1]

11. If we can refuse to prosecute war criminals, which is required by

all of our laws and the International Laws to which are signatories and are part of our Constitution, there is simply no excuse for not abiding by the judge's ruling, issuing an Executive Order and doing what is right.

Once the law has been unconstitutional it is in fact, wrong of this president to participate in any way in any action that continues to defend it. His oath of office demands that he uphold the Constitution.

How sad that he could not do it.

[joeybee12]

14. Simple is right...although it ain't the fact that is simple in your post...n/t

[Statistical]

23. How about this one ...

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/doj-declines-to-appeal-ruling-allowing.html

or this one

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/breaking-clinton-admin-refused-to.html

[LawnLover]

29. I'm new in these woods, but

the naivete around here is astonishing to me.

1) We're two weeks away from an election. No way the president is going to make a decision that may potentially alienate independent voters. The LGBT community is tiny in comparison.

2) No administration is going to let a single judge overturn a twenty year-old law and potentially set a dangerous precedent.

If we think with our hearts, YES, it's not right. But if we think with our heads, then the administration is doing the right thing. The very same thing any administration would do, no matter what the subject of that law is. People here are responding emotionally rather than pragmatically.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Filed under no shit.

But what would Olsen know, it isn't like he is an expert on the subject or anything.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Everything you are hearing from --

this adminsitration on this issue is BULLSHIT SPIN.

Don't ever forget that or let people tell you otherwise.

[Hepburn]

4. Ted Olson...

...I don't know what the hell turned your around from where you were a few years ago...but I sure as hell like you a ton more now!

:applause:

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

12. Well, this is pure speculation, but....

Perhaps when your wife (and nearly 3000 other folks) die (whether directly or indirectly) at the hands of the people you spent the last three decades working for, it forces one to take a long look at themselves?

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. Ted Olson worked for al Qaeda? nt

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

21. Like I said, whether directly or indirectly.

And Al Qaeda was a creation of Ted's previous employers, the Bush Crime Family.

[Spazito]

5. Gosh, one has to wonder why Olsen, when Solicitor General, didn't decline...

to defend this case:

Supreme Court Upholds Doctors' Right to Recommend Medical Marijuana

"In a silent rebuke to the Bush administration, the US Supreme Court Tuesday refused to hear the federal government's appeal of a lower court decision blocking the feds from punishing doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. While drug reform and patient advocates hailed the decision as a victory, the ruling does not make medical marijuana legal, nor does it prevent the federal government from continuing its policy of raids and arrests of medical marijuana providers. It does, however, block the Justice Department from threatening to suspend the prescription privileges of doctors who recommend medical marijuana. In so doing, it removes one tactic from the Justice Department's arsenal of techniques to harass the medical marijuana movement."

snip

"The Justice Department argued that the case was about the public health, not free speech. "The provision of medical advice -- whether it be that the patient take aspirin or vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana -- is not pure speech," argued Solicitor General Ted Olsen. "It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation.""

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/307/conant.shtml

Just wondering.

Edited to provide correct link.

[rug]

7. Because his President told him to.

[Spazito]

15. LOL, nice try....

Ted Olsen doesn't strike me as the kind of man who kowtows to anyone but I certainly stand to be corrected. Could you point me to where former Solicitor General states the Bush admin TOLD him to appeal, that would be very helpful.

Oh, and what about this case:

Gratz, Jennifer & Hamacher, Patrick v. Bollinger, Lee, et al.

snip

In her opinion, Gratz had done everything she could to make myself herself an ideal candidate. But one thing stood in her way, she said: Gratz is white. "If I was a minority, I probably would have gotten in," she said.

snip

Gratz knew the school practiced affirmative action in its admission procedures. When she received the rejection letter, she turned to her father, a retired policeman and asked, "Can we sue?"

snip

In a speech delivered days before the holiday celebrating the slain civil rights leader, Bush called the Michigan admission policies "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution."

snip

In the amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, Solicitor General Theodore Olsen wrote, "This case demonstrates the pernicious consequences that result when public institutions deviate from the Court's precedents by ignoring race neutral alternatives and employing race-based policies that amount to racial quotas."

http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/equal-protection/gratz-jennifer-hamacher-patrick-v-bollinger-lee-et-al

Yet another case where, even more directly, the DOJ/Solicitor General did not have to insert itself into the suit yet chose to do so.

[boston bean]

16. good response to a thread de-railing reply!

[EFerrari]

19. Precisely. n/t

[sabrina 1]

9. He seems to have changed quite a bit since 9/11 when his

wife was killed. Maybe he began to think more for himself after that. But he sure has been on the right side of many issues since then, including the Mosque in NYC about which he said that we should not allow one hateful event to cause us to become as hateful as those who perpetrated that act.

He is certainly right about his issue also. It's a disgrace that this administration has chosen to be on the wrong side of this.

[Spazito]

18. He is right on the issue of Prop 8....

A stopped clock is twice right, as they say. As to him being a changed man, possibly so. My point was that Ted Olsen, as Solicitor General, did exactly what he is saying the Obama Administration DOJ ought not to do.

I suggest he is playing politics with the issue and his political leanings have NOT changed.

[Statistical]

22. He gave you the exact reason right there...

"The Justice Department argued that the case was about the public health, not free speech. "The provision of medical advice -- whether it be that the patient take aspirin or vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana -- is not pure speech," argued Solicitor General Ted Olsen. "It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation.""

You can disagree with the logic but it was the administrations determination that the law wasn't Uconstitutional because it was a matter of medical regulation and not free speech.

Ted also didn't say Obama CAN'T appeal the decision rather than the COULD decline. Obviously Bush administration felt the law was Constitutional so they appealed it ..... so why is Obama appealing this again? Why even if it is appeal did they request a hysterical emergency stay because not doing so would "irreparably harm national security"?

[Touchdown]

25. So stoners are more important than glbt civil rights.

Glad I've been told what the real priorities are.

[Spazito]

26. So those in need of medical marijuana should go to the back of the bus?

You see those in need of medical marijuana as "stoners"? Wow....just wow.

Both issues are important, BOTH of them. To disparage those in need of medical marijuana is reprehensible, imo.

[Touchdown]

27. "In need" Indeed.

None of this is about people who need relief through marijuana, just like 90% of those buying from MJ clinics are... stoners who have easy doctors. I don't see coke users making excuses for their habit.

[Spazito]

28. You obviously didn't read about the case, it figures n/t

[Touchdown]

30. You would start your own thread if you were serious about Med MJ.

But you didn't. You threw it in here to derail this thread.

[Mimosa]

31. GLBT threads get disrupted a lot on D.U.

Touchdown, I've noticed it's worse lately. That makes me sort of depressed. Our support from many Dems here is a mile wide and an inch deep.

I've long appreciated Olsen. IMO, the Obama administration will do nothing for us. They don't want to get those teabaggers even more angry. So they have been counting on Olsen and Boies to do the heavy lifting and set a gay rights/gay marriage precedent at SCOTUS level.

[QC]

40. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though.

And the fact that it's always the same small group of people disrupting all the LGBT threads?

Well, that's most likely a coincidence, too.

[Spazito]

32. No, I 'threw' it in there to show Ted Olsen didn't do what he now says the Obama Administration....

should do. It was entirely relevant to the OP, imo. It was to call into question Mr. Olson's position in that it is obviously VERY recent. Remember this is the same man who WON the Citizen's United case in the Supreme Court. All hail Mr. Olson, not.

[Touchdown]

34. Not buying that either.

The fact that you think you're fooling anybody just shows us that you're high!:rofl:

[Spazito]

35. No real argument to present I see....

Can't attack the message, attack the messenger, same old crap I see.

[Touchdown]

37. Yes. Reputation should never be taken into account.

And I did attack the message. Being gay is a "Lifestyle Choice", getting baked is a natural cure for job hunting and a birthright rooted in genetics.:eyes:

And... you just attacked Ted Olsen on a totally unrelated case to his opinion on the DADT appeal. Attacking the messenger indeed! Pot, meet kettle.

[EFerrari]

10. Who knew Ted Olsen didn't understand the law, either!

:sarcasm:

[bullwinkle428]

36. Nice to know that DU has so many Constitutional scholars

around to give Ted an education! ;)

[donco6]

43. We're so fortunate that way!

It's quite an honor to be part of such an august partnership.

[kenny blankenship]

13. Examples of the Obama DOJ declining to appeal adverse decisions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407137.html
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/014209.html
http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/071509a.asp

One is good enough to show their spinspewers' argument that they MUST appeal is false.

[Statistical]

24. Here is a another one from Clinton DOJ.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/breaking-clinton-admin-refused-to.html

The idea that any administration (including Obama) has, ever will, or is required to defend all lawsuits against all laws no matter how blatantly Unconstitutional is absurd.

[Statistical]

20. Exactly. No administration has defended every challenge against every law.

That is a stupid (and nonexistent) standard of review.

Obama DOH declined to appeal/defend a law prohibiting passing out religious material in national parks.

According to some here that is IMPOSSIBLE. Lawyer in the DOJ must be mindless drones and "auto appeal" every decision made by every judge. In essence no case can be decided by anything less than the Supreme Court.

Obama had plenty of legal lattitude to accept the decision of the judge and not appeal. He chose not to.... the question is why?

We have an election in 2 weeks. Protecting the Constitutional rights of gay soldiers is worth less than winning a few house seats. Cut & Dry. Political expediency vs doing the right (and possibly unpopular) thing.

[struggle4progress]

33. Constitutional! say some courts. Unconstitutional! say others. Oh, goody!

That's a great place to leave the matter, isn't it -- just waiting for some wingnuts to come along to restart the next play and try to carry the ball to SCOTUS :eyes:

[Statistical]

38. Are you calling Obama a "wingnut". Just wondering because he is EXACTLY that (w/ a bonus stay)

"just waiting for some wingnuts to come along to restart the next play and try to carry the ball to SCOTUS"

How exactly would that be worse than Obama seeking an emergency stay on the injunction (keeping DADT active until appeal is complete) and "carrying the ball to SCOTUS".

I mean at worse what Obama is doing is no worse than what some "future", "potential" wingnut is doing.


So lets look at with 3 potential scenarios:
a) DOJ declines to appeal - like you said some future "wingnut" COULD MAYBE appeal AT some unknown point in the future.
b) DOJ appeals but injunction stands until appeal is completed (could be months or even a year)
c) DOJ appeals and seeks emegency relief via stay from injunction.

Obama went w/ C. It is happening today. Are you somehow arguing A would be worse? The worst it could POSSIBLY be is equal to what Obama is doing now.

[msanthrope]

44. The right wing could actually defend it---Obama's DOJ's defense is what you want--

1) In the defense of the log cabin case, FYI, they called no witnesses, no experts.

They only put the legislative history into the record....

From the OP's link--it's pissing off the rightwing---

"Either way, the legal defense the administration has mounted has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of "don't ask, don't tell," some of whom have suggested the administration has been complicit in the situation that led to Phillips' injunction ending the ban on openly gay troops.

"This is the president's agenda," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, which supports "don't ask don't tell." "I have no explanation for why they haven't more forcefully appealed. It's political. The president is determined to deliver on his campaign promise."

Even Judge Phillips noted that the government "had an opportunity to, but did not, present any of the evidence or arguments" during trial over why ending the policy would be harmful to military readiness. "They provided no evidence regarding the alleged disruption," wrote Phillips of the DOJ, in rejecting their request to stay an injunction."

2) Witt isn't being appealed. Do you realize just how major that is?

3) DOMA? The Republicans in Congress are so upset with the DOJ's performance in defending that statute that Lamar Smith is asking to intervene.


Look, this is the dance partner you want as the cases go up the lines, and you get to the circuit split with Cook in the 1st.

[msanthrope]

42. Exactly--no one wants to talk about Cook v. Gates, or any other ruling that

found DADT constitutional...or what leaving a ruling at District court would do...

From the OP's link--

"Hillman said the administration's actions could be reasonably viewed as an honest attempt to adhere to tradition. But she also said the administration may have taken this course to avoid setting a precedent that could imperil the new health care law, which is facing challenges on constitutional grounds.

"Let's say Obama is out of office before those legal challenges are resolved and then a president who follows Obama and opposes the health care reform bill and believes it not to be constitutional could fail to defend it. It's that argument that this would set a precedent in motion," she said."

And heck--the rightwing thinks Obama's gonna throw this appeal anyway--


"Either way, the legal defense the administration has mounted has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of "don't ask, don't tell," some of whom have suggested the administration has been complicit in the situation that led to Phillips' injunction ending the ban on openly gay troops. "This is the president's agenda," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, which supports "don't ask don't tell." "I have no explanation for why they haven't more forcefully appealed. It's political. The president is determined to deliver on his campaign promise."

Even Judge Phillips noted that the government "had an opportunity to, but did not, present any of the evidence or arguments" during trial over why ending the policy would be harmful to military readiness. "They provided no evidence regarding the alleged disruption," wrote Phillips of the DOJ, in rejecting their request to stay an injunction.

[donheld]

39. I never thought the day would come when

I agree with Ted Olsen over Barack Obama. :cry:

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

;-)