The explanation:
There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them.This practice cuts across party lines. And it has caused serious heartburn for more than one attorney general.
The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.
Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others."
OK. Maybe. Only I'm not totally convinced that they always do that. I think there is some judgment involved, particularly if they think there is no legitimate defense of the law in question.
I think the more likely explanation is that Obama wants DADT overturned, but he wants it done in a more orderly and planned way than suddenly lifting the ban. The military's prediction of chaos and possible violence is overplayed, but they do have a point that planning needs to be done. I just think they should be targeting the homophobia more than seeing it as gay soldiers causing the problem.
Ralph
Sam Stein on Huffington Post writes:
ReplyDelete"In a little-noticed decision last Thursday, the DoJ let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that small groups wishing to gather and demonstrate at national parks no longer have to obtain a permit from the National Park Service. The Department's decision to let that ruling stand while challenging, days later, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' decision to overturn DADT on constitutional grounds are not topically related. But it did spur another round of criticism that the administration is either insensitive or hypocritical when it comes to gay rights.
"In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court's decision on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court's ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United."
Indeed. They should just admit the real reason -- could it be political with the election imminent? Or is it simply tactical to give the military time to prepare?
An honest answer would help.
I think it's a bit coy. Instead of just putting a moratorium on DADT discharges while the judge's overturn-decision is being appealed, the Pentagon has instituted a new way of handling DADT discharges.
ReplyDeletePreviously, any commander with a grade equivalent to a one-star general could decide on the discharge. Now it has to go all the way up to the civilian Secretary of the Service Branch -- ie, Secretary of the Army, etc. Thus, they will all be handled at the Pentagon on an individual basis.
Sounds to me like a coy way of delaying them until the law gets officially repealed. I'm sure what the Obama administration would like is no more discharges but without seeming to undercut the military brass's objection. This should do it.