Judge Orders Immediate Halt to DADT

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Obviously the one in the middle is gay...eager to get into a faggot sandwich with two other dudes.

[mvscal]

The judge will be told to go fuck herself. She has no jurisdiction over matters of military administration and there are dozens of cases to support it.

You can start with Chappell v Wallace, polesmoker.

[BSmack]

The judge will be told to go fuck herself. She has no jurisdiction over matters of military administration and there are dozens of cases to support it.

You can start with Chappell v Wallace, polesmoker.

And if the Feds don't appeal, the game is over, because nobody else has standing to appeal.

[Trampis]

The judge will be told to go fuck herself. She has no jurisdiction over matters of military administration and there are dozens of cases to support it.

You can start with Chappell v Wallace, polesmoker.

What? Chappell v Wallace.....Like Dave and George?

Where theres smoke, theres a pole?

[Cuda]

Back when Chimpy was still President, I recall the left's having a grand mal siezure over sexual harrassment in the military and even that gibbering dumbfuck who writes Doonesbury throwing a shit fit about the "epidemic" of military women being raped by their superiors. Somehow, they don't think this will be the slightest problem with the fags. Oh, no, Faggot officers would never demand to fuck same-sex enlisted persons, would they?

And nice to see a federal judge with some understanding of the limits of her actual power But whats a little thing like a lack of jurisdiction compared to the gushing praise she'll be getting from fools like JSC810?

[War Wagon]

And nice to see a federal judge with some understanding of the limits of her actual power. But whats a little thing like a lack of jurisdiction compared to the gushing praise she'll be getting from fools like JSC810?

Rack.

[War Wagon]

How many constitutional law bar exams have you graded?

Don't do it Coods, don't let JSC grade your papers, it's a weighted test.

-----------------------------------

Question: You have just infected your gay lover with the AIDS virus and he's taking you to court. How do you plead?

a. Swear you wore a condom
b. Invoke the 5th amendment
c. Plead insanity
d. Hire JSC as your lawyer

If you answered anything other than d, you Failed.

[Wolfman]

Swell. One non-elected person gets to make military policy. What a country. And just what our military needs, more sexual tension in its units. If women and practicing homosexuals start serving on our submarines, it's over and we are living in the fall of the USA. Sorry JSC, you are on the wrong side on this one.

[poptart]

practicing homosexuals

[Trampis]

Swell. One non-elected person gets to make military policy. What a country. And just what our military needs, more sexual tension in its units. If women and practicing homosexuals start serving on our submarines, it's over and we are living in the fall of the USA. Sorry JSC, you are on the wrong side on this one.

Ohh comeon, this isnt the fall of the USA. Last I heard, Ive never heard any soldiers recall stories of being in a gun battle and having the two homos hes serving with blowing eachother. I would suspect that fags have just as much control over there sexual urges as strait dudes.

Let em serve, maybe they'll keep the ship cleaner and more organized.

[War Wagon]

Last I heard, Ive never heard

Last I heard... you are a dumbfuck who should read more and post less.

Or maybe I didn't actually hear that but gleaned it from your posts. Yeah, that's what I've heard.

[Trampis]

Last I heard, Ive never heard

Last I heard... you are a dumbfuck who should read more and post less.

Or maybe I didn't actually hear that but gleaned it from your posts. Yeah, that's what I've heard.

pffft, The fact is the fact I get a kick out of strong military types getting there millatary issued panties in a bind over gays. You go in the military to serve your country, not meet other fags.

Dont you have softball video to study or something?

[BSmack]

Back when Chimpy was still President, I recall the left's having a grand mal siezure over sexual harrassment in the military and even that gibbering dumbfuck who writes Doonesbury throwing a shit fit about the "epidemic" of military women being raped by their superiors. Somehow, they don't think this will be the slightest problem with the fags. Oh, no, Faggot officers would never demand to fuck same-sex enlisted persons, would they?

Tailhook says what?

[Carson]

Equating Tailhook to rape is beyond a stretch.

Gary Trudeau is merely a Michael Moore with some doodling talent.

The biggest problem with gays in the military is the impact on recruiting.

[mvscal]

Ohh comeon, this isnt the fall of the USA. Last I heard, Ive never heard any soldiers recall stories of being in a gun battle and having the two homos hes serving with blowing eachother. I would suspect that fags have just as much control over there sexual urges as strait dudes.

Let em serve, maybe they'll keep the ship cleaner and more organized.

That isn't the issue here. The issue is a Federal judge exceeding her constitutional authority and ignoring an extensive body of prior legal precedent to do so.

Any changes to military administrative procedures needs to come from Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution.

[BSmack]

That isn't the issue here. The issue is a Federal judge exceeding her constitutional authority and ignoring an extensive body of prior legal precedent to do so. Any changes to military administrative procedures needs to come from Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution.

Wrong.

14th Amendment out front should have told you that.

[Cuda]

Sorry JSC, you are on the wrong side on this one.

Tell it to 22 of the 26 NATO countries. Tell it to these guys too, since evidently they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

You're not helping your case here, dumbass

[Dinsdale]

That isn't the issue here. The issue is a Federal judge exceeding her constitutional authority and ignoring an extensive body of prior legal precedent to do so. Any changes to military administrative procedures needs to come from Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution.

Wrong.

14th Amendment out front should have told you that.

:facepalm:

The 1st Amendment out front told me that a member of the military gets to say anything they want to anyone about what's going on in their day-to-day operations.

The 4th Amendment out front told me that the Armed Forces can't look through the Enlisteds' mail before they send it through the APO.

The 5th says you can't be taken to trial without grand jury proceedings.



Shall we continue listing Rights that people waive when they join the military?

[smackaholic]

That isn't the issue here. The issue is a Federal judge exceeding her constitutional authority and ignoring an extensive body of prior legal precedent to do so. Any changes to military administrative procedures needs to come from Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution.

Wrong.

14th Amendment out front should have told you that.

:facepalm:

The 1st Amendment out front told me that a member of the military gets to say anything they want to anyone about what's going on in their day-to-day operations.

The 4th Amendment out front told me that the Armed Forces can't look through the Enlisteds' mail before they send it through the APO.

The 5th says you can't be taken to trial without grand jury proceedings.



Shall we continue listing Rights that people waive when they join the military?

RACK!

I wouldn't expect a non-scumbag attorney who has never served in the military to know about this little document they have called the UCMJ.

I would expect an alleged attorney to have some sort of familiarity, however.

[smackaholic]

Ohh comeon, this isnt the fall of the USA. Last I heard, Ive never heard any soldiers recall stories of being in a gun battle and having the two homos hes serving with blowing eachother. I would suspect that fags have just as much control over there sexual urges as strait dudes.

Let em serve, maybe they'll keep the ship cleaner and more organized.

You are correct. Fags have about as much control over sexual urges as heteros.

Which ain't much, particularly among 18-25 year olds. Military leaders have been cognizant of this fact for quite some time and have had manning policies to deal with this fact.

It's really simple. No matter how horny some dude is, it won't be an issue if there is no bait around.

Co-ed units have made fraternization a ginormous problem in the military. Allowing openly gay military members will up the ante in this area.

As for being clean and organized, the military wrote the book on that topic long before coed/fag membership.

[Mikey]

I thought that the military wasn't subject to any laws.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I thought that the military wasn't subject to any laws.

It was Stallone who said "I AM the Law!"...

...or was it Chuck Norris?

:?

[Smackie Chan]

I thought that the military wasn't subject to any laws.

It was Stallone who said "I AM the Law!"...

...or was it Chuck Norris?

:?

Not sure, but it was Bobby Fuller who unsuccessfully fought it.

[mvscal]

What has happened is that Congress passed a law, and that law was constitutionally challenged in U.S. District Court. Not surprisingly, the Judge struck it down. Also not surprisingly, she enjoined the enforcement of that unconstitutional law.

It isn't surprising because she is a shit sucking fleck of cumdust who doesn't have a fucking clue of what she's talking about and absolutely lacks the necessary authority to issue her decision. This has been made abundantly clear down through the years.

The constitutional rights of active duty military personnel are not completely eliminated but they are restricted when their exercise is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force. This concept has been challenged and consistently upheld numerous times.

For example, their 1st amendment rights are restricted by article 88 of the UCMJ nor does the 14th amendment protect service members from gender based discrimination in several different respects eg selective service registration and combat occupational specialties.

There is very clear separation of powers issue at stake here. The judicial branch is entirely out of line in this instance.

[BSmack]

The constitutional rights of active duty military personnel are not completely eliminated but they are restricted when their exercise is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force.

Too bad that argument is absolutely laughable when it comes to DADT. Almost all of our NATO allies allow gays to serve and there has been no damage to their "good order or discipline."

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Not sure, but it was Bobby Fuller who unsuccessfully fought it.

I imagine he suffered the fullest extent of the law in the "penile" system...


:o

Lucky guy.

[mvscal]

The constitutional rights of active duty military personnel are not completely eliminated but they are restricted when their exercise is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force.

Too bad that argument is absolutely laughable when it comes to DADT.

The issue is who is responsible for making that determination. I'll give you a couple hints. It isn't NATO and their toy armies and it isn't some asshole in a black robe.

[mvscal]

There is very clear separation of powers issue at stake here. The judicial branch is entirely out of line in this instance.

So you really think Congress can pass a law and then it not be subject to a constitutional challenge?

Perhaps a review is in order.

I would say so. You may begin your review with your own cute little chart. Start with the section which says:

Congress can...restrict jurisdiction of courts to hear certain types of cases...

Good job kicking your own ass, tard.

[mvscal]

The issue is who is responsible for making that determination. I'll give you a couple hints. It isn't NATO and their toy armies and it isn't some asshole in a black robe.

So someone other than a judge determines the constitutionality of a law? Link?


Take your time.

It won't take any time at all.

Article 1, Section 8 of US Constitution specifically grants the power to regulate the armed forces to Congress not the judicial branch.

[mvscal]

Actually it is exactly the same thing or does Congress possess some other secret method of regulation that does not involve passing laws?

You are, as usual, a totally fucked up mess.

[BSmack]

Actually it is exactly the same thing or does Congress possess some other secret method of regulation that does not involve passing laws?

That has GOT to be the single dumbest thing you have ever posted. What is it about Congress passes a law, person with standing files suit and eventually the Courts decide of it passes constitutional muster that you are failing to comprehend?

[mvscal]

What is it about the lack of jurisdiction to issue a finding in this case are YOU struggling to comprehend? This isn't the first time the issue has come up before and in every single previous instance the bottom line response from the courts has been that it wasn't any of their business.

The federal judiciary does not run the military. It does not regulate the military and it does not tell the military what it can or cannot do. The military is run by officers commissioned by Congress IAW regulations established by Congress. Period. It's that fucking simple, you stupid asshole.

[OCmike]

Since none of the other former members of the armed forces want to weigh in with an objective take, here’s mine…

Of the 900 sailors and 2000 marines that I deployed with on the USS Tarawa(LHA-1), there were about five known gay sailors and five known gay marines. When I say “known” gay, I mean that if they said the word “crisp”, it’d sound like it had 47 S’s in it, needed two feet of clearance on either side of them as they walked, to account for the sashay, or did a head bob-n-weave that would rival Muhammed Ali if they got pissed off. No one needed to ask and they didn’t need to tell. They were so gay they couldn’t hide it if they wanted to. That said, guess what…no one gave a fuck. Partially because if you do your job well in the Navy you have everyone’s respect in general, but also because accusing someone of being gay without stone cold proof (pics, I guess :bloorf:) is the worst possible thing you can do, since you can ruin someone’s career. It was treated the same as an allegation of sexual harassment. You can allege it, but you’d better be able to fucking prove it.

Anyway, one of the gay dudes worked in my engine room. We’d rag on him for his lisp the same way we’d rag on a redneck or black dude from Mississippi for barely speaking English. He rolled with it though and would just fire back at whoever was ragging on him.

So serving with gays wasn’t a problem. The world did not end, the ship did not come to a screeching halt, morale was not low, no one got their junk eyeballed, etc, etc. What DID damn near cause the ship to come to a screeching halt was in 1996 when they started assigning women to combat ships in our battle group. Prior to that they all served on medical ships or tenders (repair ships) only.

My engine room was assigned two women, one white chick from the south and a black chick from NYC.

The white chick tried to get along with everyone, but if she was asked to do something like pull the oily rags out of the regular trash, she’d cry because it’d ruin the $60 fake nails she had just gotten. So rather than have to deal with that, the petty officer in charge would assign the task to a guy and give the chicks easy work, because they’d do the cake jobs and not complain. Or, they’d purposely do a job just well enough that they couldn’t get busted for dereliction of duty, but just shitty enough that the POIC would ask a guy to do it from then on. It was a game they learned early on and played frequently.

The black chick mostly just disappeared when work needed to be done. Nobody wanted to write her up because they were afraid she’d say they were picking on her because she was a woman and/or black. She knew it, they knew it and she took full advantage of it.

Other workcenters had it worse though. Where our two women would cry or just disappear when shit jobs needed to be done, other chicks would trade blowjobs or handjobs if a guy would agree to sort the trash for them or whatever. In the worst cases, some of the better looking women would have a guy do ALL of their work in exchange for letting him have sex with her when we pulled into a liberty port. The chicks were smart about it too. They’d target the dudes who otherwise wouldn’t get laid.

So in my personal experience, serving with gay dudes was business as usual(:softball:). The work got done and no one really cared much. Serving with women, on the other hand, had resulted in complete and utter chaos by the time I left the ship in late 1997.

[Dinsdale]

That has GOT to be the single dumbest thing you have ever posted. What is it about Congress passes a law, person with standing files suit and eventually the Courts decide of it passes constitutional muster that you are failing to comprehend?

Oh, OK.

I guess it's cool for my bud's nephew to give us a call from Iraq to tell us exactly where he is, where he'll be tomorrow at noon, and exactly what he's up to...

He'll be happy to hear this. Maybe we should send him a prepaid cell or something.


Feeling stupid yet?


Not sure which part of "waived Constitutional Rights" you're not catching on to?

So, how exactly is any court supposed to uphold a person's 14th Amendment rights when they've waived them?

I'll let you in on another secret (secret to dunderheads, anyway) -- a current or former member of the US military can't sue the military, except in very rare cases, usually due to extreme willful negligence, or paycheck squabbles (which the military ALWAYS wins, but it's one of the few things you can sue over).


And yes -- no court has any authority over military policy. Pretty wise of those Framers to keep the judiciary out of it, and instead grant that power to the most accountable-to-the-citizens (in a perfect world anyway) branch of the government.

[Dinsdale]

serving gay dudes was business as usual

Sorry, I'll do better next time.

[mvscal]

Since none of the other former members of the armed forces want to weigh in with an objective take, here’s mine…

Shut the fuck up, idiot, or try offering an "objective take" on the actual subject of who runs the armed forces.

Your choices are:

A. Congress
B. Judicial Branch

THAT is the topic here.

[BSmack]

That has GOT to be the single dumbest thing you have ever posted. What is it about Congress passes a law, person with standing files suit and eventually the Courts decide of it passes constitutional muster that you are failing to comprehend?

I guess it's cool for my bud's nephew to give us a call from Iraq to tell us exactly where he is, where he'll be tomorrow at noon, and exactly what he's up to...

Conflating the need for operational security with the right of the courts to review laws passed by Congress is weapons grade stupid.

[mvscal]

And when a judge says that an individual's 1st amendment rights is more important the need for operational security?

That's why the federal judiciary is not in the business of determining what the armed forces do or do not need and that's why idiots like you and GaySC don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[OCmike]

Since none of the other former members of the armed forces want to weigh in with an objective take, here’s mine…

Shut the fuck up, idiot, or try offering an "objective take" on the actual subject of who runs the armed forces.

Your choices are:

A. Congress
B. Judicial Branch

THAT is the topic here.

good God what a little attention whore you are.

[mvscal]

Well? Anything?