08 June 2009

good move? bad move?

or a possible tactical error?

the Washington Post put up an article not that long ago that SCOTUS refused to here a case on DADT - Supreme Court Turns Down 'Don't Ask' Challenge.

It is not a ruling on the merits of DADT; it's just a refusal to hear this particular case. Since the Supreme Court does not have to explain its actions, there could be any number of reasons.

Some are saying that SCOTUS may have decided that this case is not the right one to hear. Others may believe that another case is more to the point. Still others think its a betrayal of the Obama administration because it's reported they asked the Court not to hear it.

The last possibility may prove to be the one that sticks with all sorts of counterfeit reasonings attached to it. It may be the tactical error.

Given the recent history of accusations that the Human Rights Campaign and the Obama administration have a deal to put this on the back burner for next year, it it going to be harder to swallow for a lot of people.

The case - Pietrangelo v. Gates - originally had 12 plaintiffs. Eleven of them agreed to drop out of the case.
Pietrangelo appealed to the Supreme Court on his own, while most of the other plaintiffs asked the court to not to review the case, preferring to allow the administration to deal with the issue.

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.
So what is going to happen is that this is going to fan the flames of an already bad situation that Mr. Obama has actually put himself into and could have avoided.

Though he is not solely to blame. Part of the the problem, imho, is the lack of real leadership in the LGBTQ community along with many splinter groups.

Obama has a very easy way out, as i see it. Simply giving an order that no further discharges will happen until the matter is settled will give not only give breathing room but time for the services to get themselves out of the situation that, from what i've been reading, the majority of officers in actual field operations are turning their heads from unless forced by other service members who push personal agendas.

doing this will also help protect our country. so many important service members, linguists being the most notable, will continue to insure safety.

No comments: