An unelected Federal judge has decided upon herself that the US Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is “unconstitutional.”
A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military…
This lady judge — who graduated from Berkeley and who was appointed by the Draft Dodger in Chief, Bill Clinton — has decided that homosexuals serving openly in the military would not have an effect on military readiness. I’m sure her depth of knowledge of the military, military culture, or what it takes for the military to achieve and preserve readiness is as vast as Bill Clinton’s understanding of monogamy or Barrack Obama’s understanding of how to look cool while riding a bicycle…
I have little doubt that Obama is behind this, and that he asked this activist judge to do what he couldn’t get Congress (who is sometimes accountable to their constituents — though, less so all the time) to do the dirty work for him.
As The Blog Prof notes:
This is becoming a pattern for our ruling class. If they can’t get their agenda through Congress they will do it unconstitutionally through federal agencies. If that can’t be done, then they will ram it through via activist judges that they appoint. Such is the case with the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Obama promised to overturn it but it became a political hot potato for him. The military certainly wasn’t going to change it. So Obama had a federal judge of the ruling class overturn it for him?
The activist judge (is she gay, too? And yes, it’s relevant…) who knows less about the military than Al Gore does about climate science, argues that DADT violates gay soldiers’ rights to “free expression.” Uh, I’m sorry, but when did the military allow any soldier the right of free expression?
The US Military is an all-volunteer force. You know what you’re signing up for when you enlist. You know that there are a number of rights that you are giving up in order to serve a greater good. If you can’t abide by that, then don’t enlist. Pretty simple, really.
Well, unless you’re an unhinged Liberal moonbat.
In the meantime, does this mean we go back to Ask and Tell?
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
G.I. means Government Issued.
It doesn’t mean General Interest.
Anyone that qualifies and signs the contract can join. Knowing full well that you are expected to behave gender appropriate. What this activist judge is trying to say is that a homosexual serving in the military should behave as a ‘flamer.’
This judge is not only ignorant, she is a bigot, stereotyping all homosexuals.
Yes, when a soldier signs his/her contract they know the rules about DADT. However, this does not make DADT legitimate in any way. I served in Iraq with a number of homosexuals, most notably the XO of my company. Does their sexual preference really matter? I would not have thought twice about taking a bullet for any one of them and neither would they for I. Who they chose to be with is their business; how they defend our country is the militaries business. Being gay did not make them cowards in any way; they are still soldiers and did what was expected of them. The military does not tell you what religion you can choose, so why are they able to tell you who you can choose to love. It doesn’t matter; they will serve with honor and die a soldier’s death if necessary.
SPC J. Vega
OIF Vet 2005 – 2009