U.S. court ends legal challenge to 'don't ask' law

[Dan82]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ype=gaylesbian

A federal appeals court Wednesday ended the legal challenge to the now-repealed "don't ask, don't tell" law, which barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled Sept. 29 that the case was moot because a congressional measure repealing the 1993 law had taken effect nine days earlier. The court set aside a federal judge's September 2010 ruling overturning the law and said the case would have to start over if a future Congress re-enacted "don't ask, don't tell."

On Wednesday, the court said none of its judges had called for a vote on a rehearing requested by Log Cabin Republicans, the gay-rights organization that challenged the law in 2004...



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1ddbFjhkW

[Revan]

I'm a little confused, what does it mean?

[Aeon Magus]

Originally Posted by Revan

I'm a little confused, what does it mean?

It means Lady Gaga can finally get rid of her meat dress.

In the article:

"The organization said some gays and lesbians were given less-than-honorable discharges and remain ineligible for veterans' benefits, and some have been sued by the government to recoup federal loans."

Now what of those gays and lesbians? Aw, shoot, they missed their chance, huh?
No, they should be given what is due them. They enrolled not because of who they are, but because they love their country. They also protected and served the country, so they should be eligible for the same benefits as the rest, if not be recalled to serve once again.

[Paper Heart]

Basically, instead of ruling in favor of the judge's original decision, which would have found the entire DADT policy to be unconstitutional, they just dropped it because it was repealed. This means that it can be re-enacted later on since it was only repealed. If they stuck to the decision, then it would be done for good. Which means that if someone does reenact it, then the courts would have to go through this whole business again.