Behind the Obama Admin's request to the SC to not take up the DADT challenge

[Godhumor]

On edit: Since apparently I need to explain this. Lots of articles are pushing the story that this decision comes at the admin's request and people in DU have been, essentially, asking why. This is to post the Obama admin rationale for the request.

"The rebuff spares President Barack Obama’s administration from the awkward task of mounting a legal defense for a policy the president says should be repealed."

and why only one defendant pursued this to the Supreme Court:

"One of the 12, James E. Pietrangelo II, asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case. Most of the rest of the group joined a brief asking the justices to defer reviewing the policy while the administration and lawmakers revisit it."

From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC_i2I17f9Ng

[ClarkUSA]

1. Your OP title is pure fiction. Pres. Obama had nothing to do w/the SC throwing it back to Congress.

There's still time to revise your title so it reflects reality. Whether you do it or not will reveal whether or not you are interested in the facts or just pushing an Obama bashing agenda.

[Godhumor]

4. Excuse me? I'm an Obama supporter and always have been

I'm responding to the people who are up in arms in LBN about how each article is quoting that this "Comes at the Obama administration's request".

[Captain Hilts]

2. Someone's going to have to explain this to me using BBC 'Special' English. nt

[Thrill]

3. Until Dawn Johnson is confirmed. No real changes on DOJ

challenges will change. Thats the fight people should be fighting

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Isn't this where it should be handled? Some people couldn't wait to...

assail the administration, but the president has maintained throughout that he wants this bad law repealed by Congress, where it originated.

"Most of the rest of the group joined a brief asking the justices to defer reviewing the policy while the administration and lawmakers revisit it."

DU has to learn that not everything the administration does is a slight, and stop running off of emotion. I sometimes wonder if people are as hard on their representatives in Congress as they are on the White House. A lot of us just seem to think they should drop all their issues off on the WH steps, and let them handle it. Everyone of us has two senators, and a representative in the House. Can't we put pressure there?

[Godhumor]

6. I agree but I understand the emotion that the LGBT has over...

this basic human rights issue. That said, I think the administration's reasoning for not wanting to have to defend the policy and getting it back into the legislative process makes sense.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Then change the policy, jackass.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Wow! How do you propose that the President "change the policy" jackass?

Isn't this precisely why he wants this to play out in the Congress, where it became law in the first place? I mean, isn't that where policy/law is written? The emotional outbursts here sometimes frighten me, because otherwise rational people become enraged just by reading a few snippets.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Bill Clinton gave us DADT, Barack Obama can give us something better.

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. While I agree with you, wholeheartedly, I think the gratuitous namecalling

threw me off.

I'm not sure why everyone's flying off the handle, as it appears that only one officer out of 12 wanted this case to even be heard by the SCOTUS.

<snip>

"Their position was supported by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit group that helps military personnel affected by "don't ask, don't tell." It said another case that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco was a better vehicle to bring the issue before the Supreme Court."

<snip>

"In opposing Supreme Court review of the Pietrangelo case, opponents of "don't ask, don't tell" have noted that Obama pledged during his presidential election campaign to end the policy. They say he appears to proceeding carefully to end the ban by first asking the Pentagon to study the implications and report its recommendations."

<snip>

"Since then, its opponents say, times have changed, and the public is more supportive of allowing gays to serve in the military. According to a July 2008 Washington Post/ABC News poll, 75 percent of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly in the armed services, compared to 44 percent in 1993."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?hpid=topnews

Are you upset that this particular case won't be heard in the USSC? I guess I'm just curious if you think this soldier was right to proceed, and the other eleven were wrong?

[BuyingThyme]

11. I, as so often, am tired of this president shitting on the Constitution and its people.

He said he would revisit DADT and now he's playing games.

Some people say he can legally repeal it at will. Others say he needs to go through Congress. He's doing neither. He's just playing games with the Constitution, as usual.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. I'm not here to change your mind, as that seems an impossible task.

"some people say this"; "some people say that". I'm sorry your patience has run out. Best to you in the future.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Bill Clinton AND Congress gave us DADT

It will require the Congress and the President to end it.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Well then, why don't they.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Perhaps there are not enough votes in the House or Senate supporting a repeal