Court won't hold 'Don't ask, don't tell' lawsuit

-_- Oh God...

 

Honestly, I don't think there's any point in continuing it, honestly. I don't think the courts can speed it up any faster.

 

this is just so stupid!!!

 

Actually I'm a little confused....what does this all mean right now?

 

I don't see why the ruling has any meaning now that DADT is officially repealed.

 

It still has meaning because DADT hasn't been repealed. And because there is no target date for repeal. In other words, DADT could be declared unconstitutional and ended before the DoD ends it.

Also, if DADT is declared unconstitutional, it'll be a lot harder for the Republicans to reinstate it when they take control. And if anyone believes they won't, well, everyone believed they wouldn't dare repeal Obama's health insurance reform.

 

I think it's good the court case continues to keep pressure on the military to finish all the bs they say they have to do to implement the full repeal. The last I read said it might take all of this year although I'm unclear on the full timeline and when people can serve openly.

 

Just to annoyingly point out a couple facts :icon_wink, the Republican Party was the party that ended slavery 150 years ago and well into the 20's the Democratic Party was the party of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

actually, you are wrong to make those assertions. the party of lincoln shares only it's name with the republican party of today. Also, the democrats in the 20's who were supporters/sympathizers with the KKK moved over to the republican party in the dacades that followed, many becaue of the civil rights act, which they did not support, along with quite a few of the republicans of the time.

names of political parties do not represent some set, finite political values. lincoln was not a states-righter, and believed, as the republicans of his time, in a strong federal goverment... today, republicans are distinctly anti-federal goverment, and use states-rights (even though they often trump unconstitutional ideas as states-rights) as a clarion call of the right wing movement.

Lincoln did work towards and bring a end to slavery, but the republican party has shifted, and in many cases, now represent the southern democrats of lincoln's time. The democrats of the northern states in lincoln's time were more supportive of the end of slavery than the southern democrats (there is alot of history about why that was, often mostly economic based, so we wont go into that.)

Ironicly, on the basis of lincoln's agenda and policies, the modern democratic movement is the modern party of lincoln.

The twentieth century brought a shift, and in some ways, a reversal of the political parties in america. the devision between the northern and southeren democrats came to a head over the continued issue of civil rights for african americans, and in the 40's-50's-60's caused a schism in the partys, with pro-civil rights republicans moving to the left, and anti-civil rights democrats moving to the right.

since then, it is incorrect to apply the labels of the past to the parties as they are now. racisem is now for the most part rejected by both parties, though wing-nuts still cling to it, and we are see a certain reigniting of it on the far right, the majority of republicans still soundly reject racisem and the KKK/Aryan nation. And with the right wing calling for the dismantaling of the federal goverment, and pronouncing states rights that dont exist in the constitution (succession itself is still a iffy question, outside of texas, which did have soverignty as a seporate nation), they can't claim to be the party of lincoln, which stood for alot of the things the republican party now is against.

 

it seems to be a fallback line that just wont die... no matter how many times the facts of the matter are laid out.