<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ninth Circuit lifts stay on Log Cabin&#8217;s DADT victory. Policy unenforceable immediately</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 19:10:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97854</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97854</guid>
		<description>andrewb,

I think you&#039;ll find the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34882&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;DOJ filing in Golinski&lt;/a&gt; to be interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>andrewb,</p>
<p>I think you&#8217;ll find the <a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34882" rel="nofollow" class="articleLink">DOJ filing in Golinski</a> to be interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97853</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97853</guid>
		<description>F Young,

When Judge Phillips made her ruling, she made it &quot;world wide&quot;.  The military has already said that it would abide by her ruling and the lift of stay and it appears that this will also be world wide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>F Young,</p>
<p>When Judge Phillips made her ruling, she made it &#8220;world wide&#8221;.  The military has already said that it would abide by her ruling and the lift of stay and it appears that this will also be world wide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrewdb</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97849</link>
		<dc:creator>andrewdb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97849</guid>
		<description>1. Not clear if the admin is going to appeal this.

2.  The ruling by the trial court was an injunction that applied worldwide before it was stayed.  Now the stay has been lifted the original injunction of the trial court is effective and will apply worldwide.

3.  The hearing on the merits of the appeal were accelerated and will now be hear at the end of August.

This puts the situation back to what it was for the 8 or so days immediately after the trial court ruled. 

As Timothy noted, this was based in (large?) part on the administration&#039;s filings late Friday night in the _Golinski_ case re DOMA - that case is still at the trial court level in the Northern District of Cal (ie, San Francisco) and not yet anywhere near the court of appeal level - but it is the same lawyers (DOJ) and same client (USA).  One can&#039;t argue both sides of the same issue at the same time and not expect the court eventually to notice!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1. Not clear if the admin is going to appeal this.</p>
<p>2.  The ruling by the trial court was an injunction that applied worldwide before it was stayed.  Now the stay has been lifted the original injunction of the trial court is effective and will apply worldwide.</p>
<p>3.  The hearing on the merits of the appeal were accelerated and will now be hear at the end of August.</p>
<p>This puts the situation back to what it was for the 8 or so days immediately after the trial court ruled. </p>
<p>As Timothy noted, this was based in (large?) part on the administration&#8217;s filings late Friday night in the _Golinski_ case re DOMA &#8211; that case is still at the trial court level in the Northern District of Cal (ie, San Francisco) and not yet anywhere near the court of appeal level &#8211; but it is the same lawyers (DOJ) and same client (USA).  One can&#8217;t argue both sides of the same issue at the same time and not expect the court eventually to notice!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy Mac</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97847</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy Mac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97847</guid>
		<description>Any LGBT person in the military who takes this as carte blanche approval to &quot;come out&quot; is a great big fool!

This ain&#039;t over til it is over!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any LGBT person in the military who takes this as carte blanche approval to &#8220;come out&#8221; is a great big fool!</p>
<p>This ain&#8217;t over til it is over!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DN</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97845</link>
		<dc:creator>DN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97845</guid>
		<description>[Sorry folks, I thought I had posted this yesterday but I guess I forgot to hit &quot;publish&quot;]



Man, do I feel you, there.  The number of times I&#039;ve e-mailed my work off to my bosses and not waited for the giant attachments to make it through my outbox!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Sorry folks, I thought I had posted this yesterday but I guess I forgot to hit "publish"]</p>
<p>Man, do I feel you, there.  The number of times I&#8217;ve e-mailed my work off to my bosses and not waited for the giant attachments to make it through my outbox!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: F Young</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97844</link>
		<dc:creator>F Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97844</guid>
		<description>The Ninth Circuit&#039;s jurisdiction is only over the western USA roughly. 

The articles I have read seem to assume that this decision affects DADT over the entire USA. In practice, is that right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ninth Circuit&#8217;s jurisdiction is only over the western USA roughly. </p>
<p>The articles I have read seem to assume that this decision affects DADT over the entire USA. In practice, is that right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97843</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97843</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not clear, is the 9th circuit still hearing the appeal or has it upheld the ruling</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not clear, is the 9th circuit still hearing the appeal or has it upheld the ruling</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris McCoy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/07/07/34844/comment-page-1#comment-97841</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris McCoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=34844#comment-97841</guid>
		<description>I have been unable to find any news stating if the Obama administration plans to appeal the ruling to the full Circuit or to the Supreme Court? Do they intend to let the ruling stand?

Also, I am unclear if this is a ruling just on the stay itself, or a ruling on the the full DADT(DP) repeal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been unable to find any news stating if the Obama administration plans to appeal the ruling to the full Circuit or to the Supreme Court? Do they intend to let the ruling stand?</p>
<p>Also, I am unclear if this is a ruling just on the stay itself, or a ruling on the the full DADT(DP) repeal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
