Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

LCR responds to Justice Department’s ridiculous filing

Timothy Kincaid

September 24th, 2010

The Justice Department argued that it would be beyond the scope of Judge Phillip’s authority to issue a world-wide injunction on the enforcement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. LCR has replied, noting that this question has already been addressed by the court.

MR. FREEBORNE: With regard to the last point, this Court’s jurisdiction would only extend to this district. They are asking for nationwide relief, which this Court would not even have the power to effectuate a nationwide injunction. This is not a class action; this is a case brought within this district.

THE COURT: But how in the world could — if the plaintiffs succeed in this case on the relief that they are seeking, are you suggesting that an injunction would be only directed to service members serving within the Ninth Circuit?

MR. FREEBORNE: Your Honor, this Court does not have nationwide jurisdiction to issue an injunction.

THE COURT: Are you suggesting that, theoretically, if a district court orders that any regulation or federal law is unconstitutional, it only applies in the district where the Court sits?

MR. FREEBORNE: Well, Your Honor, we can put that issue aside. I just note that I think that –

THE COURT: That’s because I think you are incorrect.

As for the idea that it should only be limited to the Log Cabin Republican members,

The government’s first argument objecting to a worldwide injunction against DADT is that such an injunction should be limited to Log Cabin Republicans and its current members (who, in an appalling Catch-22, the government implies should be specifically identified as “bona fide LCR members”). This objection should be summarily rejected. This case was never litigated or tried on the basis that Log Cabin sought to invalidate DADT only for its own members; on the contrary, this case was brought as a facial challenge.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Mana
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Ooooh, BURNED.

Ray
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

In spite of the government disconnect concerning whom the case applies to, has any district or circuit court ever been able to enforce an order worldwide?

Pender
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

It would be pretty poetic if the outcome of their argument was that every gay soldier joined the Log Cabin Republicans.

Richard W. Fitch
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Pender – I have to chuckle at that; but the Feds would assert that it does not apply retroactively – only to those who were LCR members at the time the suit was filed.

Mark F.
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Seeing this and the “amicus” briefs filed in favor of Prop 8, one understands why satire is so hard to do anymore.

Rick
September 25th, 2010 | LINK

‘worldwide’ in this case is legalspeak meaning throughout the worldwide jurisdiction of the constitution – naval vessels at sea, bases in far-flung reaches, etc.,

customartist
September 25th, 2010 | LINK

Here’s the bottom line:

The very issue being argued Is A Federal Issue. It Addresses The Constitution,…

So by the very action of the Defense Participating in this exercize, the Defense is asking for a ruling On A Federal Issue. If they did receive a ruling from the Judge In Their Favor, then they would surely want it to be applied Nationally, not just within the 9th,…

AND this is a Federal Court, not Podunk, Arkansas (no offense to AR), and as such the Judge is equipped and empowered to Adjudicate FEDERAL Law.

And to all of my conservative friends, please stop criticizing judges AFTER they make rulings that you do not like.

Cheers!

Don’t we all remember George W. Bush firing a bunch of what he regarded as “Liberal” Judges during his reign of terror???

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.