Originally posted by sh76 That makes perfect sense. Whether you want DADT repealed or not (and I would), one federal judge should not have the authority to dictate policy without the ability to appeal. Staying enforcement pending review by the Circuit makes perfect sense. Otherwise any federal judge could essentially do anything and force the government to comply. What if some yahoo fed ...[text shortened]... if some judge in Mississippi does the same thing as the 11th circuit case is winding down? etc.
The legal standard for granting a stay are clear: the one seeking it must show "irreparable harm" if the ruling is enforced AND a "substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits".
I do not see how the government can do either under the facts of this case. Granted, this is only a temporary stay while the Appeals Court determines whether an appellate stay should be granted (after arguments are submitted by both sides) but still it is legally dubious.
Originally posted by no1marauder We know the Republican Party line, but it hardly supports your assertion that the Republicans can't "obstruct" anything.
Originally posted by sh76 That's because you have the luxury of being an armchair strategist. If you were responsible for actually running a military organization with millions of members and a complex hierarchy, you might have to take factors into account other than merely what seems to you to be absurd and counterproductive.
i guess generalissimo is also not running for President 2 years from now or depending on his cohorts doing well in the election two weeks from now.
Originally posted by TerrierJack Yep, the Republican Senators voted against the troops.
Oh.
Let me get this straight, you say they voted against the troops. but Harry Reid attached "dadt" to the bill along with the "dream act" knowing dam well the republicans would be against that and filibuster. Making them look bad and have kool-aid drinkers like your self regurgitate the Democratic line "Republicans voted against the troops". A total political stunt where anybody w/half a brain would understand Harry Reid and the radical Dems are against the troops for trying to ram through radicalism in the defense spending bill in the first place knowing it would be blocked.
Originally posted by utherpendragon Oh.
Let me get this straight, you say they voted against the troops. but Harry Reid attached "dadt" to the bill along with the "dream act" knowing dam well the republicans would be against that and filibuster. Making them look bad and have kool-aid drinkers like your self regurgitate the Democratic line "Republicans voted against the troops". A total ...[text shortened]... gh radicalism in the defense spending bill in the first place knowing it would be blocked.
Sorry, I don't buy that excuse. They voted against the troops.
Originally posted by TerrierJack Sorry, I don't buy that excuse. They voted against the troops.
Nice spin but thats not true. You know it and I know it. But, I wont sink to your depths and chastise you saying, "you should be ashamed of yourself and that you are a disgrace to your family" as you often do sonny Jim.
Originally posted by utherpendragon Nice spin but thats not true. You know it and I know it. But, I wont sink to your depths and chastise you saying, "you should be ashamed of yourself and that you are a disgrace to your family" as you often do sonny Jim.
Republicans announced back in June immediately after the House passage of repeal of DADT that they would filibuster the bill in the Senate. That's what they were going to do period and whatever Harry Reid did was meaningless.
Originally posted by no1marauder Republicans announced back in June immediately after the House passage of repeal of DADT that they would filibuster the bill in the Senate. That's what they were going to do period and whatever Harry Reid did was meaningless.
so you agree w/terrier jack they "voted against the troops" ?
The backpedaling of the Obama administration
21 Oct '10 01:27
Back to Top