Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Jun '09 18:46 / 2 edits
    In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_gays_military

    I'm mainly just pointing this out for No1 and Scriabin.

    I guess sexual orientation hadn't made the list of suspect classifications yet, at least not on the federal level.

    How much longer do you think it will be until sexual orientation is considered a suspect classification?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jun '09 19:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_gays_military

    I'm mainly just pointing this out fo ...[text shortened]... o you think it will be until sexual orientation is considered a suspect classification?
    One shouldn't read too much into a cert denial.

    Personally, I don't think these types of discriminations can pass "rational basis" testing.

    I don't believe in the whole "suspect classification" doctrine, so I'm ill-equipped to say when some group will be arbitrarily included in its beneficent umbrella.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Jun '09 20:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    One shouldn't read too much into a cert denial.

    Personally, I don't think these types of discriminations can pass "rational basis" testing.

    I don't believe in the whole "suspect classification" doctrine, so I'm ill-equipped to say when some group will be arbitrarily included in its beneficent umbrella.
    I understand that a denial of cert means nothing. I meant that the lower court applied that standard.

    FWIW, I also think that having separate standards for different types of discrimination is kind of silly. If something it's justified, then it's justified against anyone and if it's not justified then it shouldn't be upheld just because it passes some artificially low standard.

    But, then again, no one asked me.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jun '09 20:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    I understand that a denial of cert means nothing. I meant that the lower court applied that standard.

    FWIW, I also think that having separate standards for different types of discrimination is kind of silly. If something it's justified, then it's justified against anyone and if it's not justified then it shouldn't be upheld just because it passes some artificially low standard.

    But, then again, no one asked me.
    Since the 9th Circuit has ruled differently, the Court may just wait until that case is resolved at the trial and appellate level. That would also mean that Obama might in the meantime keep his campaign promise and moot the whole issue. The SC likes it when they can duck an issue entirely.