U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2010, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,169,168 times
Reputation: 3569

Advertisements

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

The entire article is available here: komonews.com: Judge orders worldwide 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
I applaud this ruling...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:09 PM
 
10,013 posts, read 5,744,793 times
Reputation: 6873
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

The entire article is available here: komonews.com: Judge orders worldwide 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
I applaud this ruling...

While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.

I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?

In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).

Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.

My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:19 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,473,314 times
Reputation: 8412
Only valid in their district. The judge doesn't have any power outside that district to rule like that, and higher courts and other district courts may not take kindly to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:31 PM
 
6,230 posts, read 9,513,066 times
Reputation: 7520
It's the beginning of the end. Since when has a single federal judge had WORLD power to order such an abrupt change in more than 200 years of Military service and order?! Next up, worldwide gay marriage. This is the beginning of the end of times. Repent!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:32 PM
 
5,307 posts, read 5,914,680 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.

I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?

In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).

Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.

My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
The losing party here is the US Department of Justice. If they did not appeal, wouldn't this ruling stand?

For a different Federal judge to issue an injunction against the injunction, wouldn't he or she have to have a case presented to their court? Who would file such a case?

US Constitution: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

I read that to say an inferior court has judidicial power of the United States. Of course, the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, but the case would have to go there first. Again, if DoJ doesn't appeal, isn't it a done deal? (I realize that's a big if).

And it goes without saying, IANAL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Coastal Northeast
15,742 posts, read 21,996,197 times
Reputation: 5277
Seventeen years overdue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,641 posts, read 5,340,774 times
Reputation: 4782
There's a good overview of the federal court system here: Understanding the Federal Courts
The Constitution provides the federal courts the power to hear cases involving the Constitution as a law, laws enacted by Congress, treaties, and laws relating to navigable waters (the sea, the Great Lakes, and most rivers) and commerce on them. The federal courts' jurisdiction also encompasses the many cases that involve or affect commerce among states.
Since a main argument against DADT was a Constitutional one - freedom of speech - it was within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, or a District Court.
A person involved in a suit in a U.S. court may proceed through three levels of decision. Generally, the case will be heard and decided by one of the district courts on the first level. If a party is dissatisfied with the decision rendered, the party may have the decision reviewed in one of the courts of appeals. If dissatisfied with the decision of a court of appeals, the party may seek additional review in the Supreme Court of the United States; however, the Supreme Court primarily reviews only cases that involve a matter of great national importance and only accepts a small number of cases each term.
Some news agencies are reporting that the Administration is considering an appeal. If they do so, it will be up to a Court of Appeals, and potentially the Supreme Court after that.

The text of the decision is here: Judge's Judgment and Permanent Injunction of DADT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:43 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,180,842 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

The entire article is available here: komonews.com: Judge orders worldwide 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction
I applaud this ruling...
A Clinton appointee. What a surprise!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,028 posts, read 15,237,623 times
Reputation: 11769
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.

I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?

In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).

Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.

My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
As per the link, it seems that a worldwide injunction was part of the original request:

"The Log Cabin Republicans asked her for an immediate injunction so the policy can no longer be used against any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world.

"The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country," said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.""

Apparently what they asked for was this:

"We want her to block any further enforcement or application of don't ask, don't tell wherever we have military operations not just in California, not just in this country but wherever we have military bases anywhere in the world," he said."

As to the limits on her jurisdiction, from the same link:

"Government lawyers argued before Judge Phillips, however, that she lacks authority beyond California.

Dan Woods, the lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans, recalled her reaction: "She looked at government counsel and said, 'You cannot be serious,' or words to that effect.""

Group Seeks 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Injunction : NPR

It did seem incredibly far-reaching, but, if it is indeed legal, more power to the judge and to the Log Cabin Republicans for getting the case heard
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2010, 02:47 PM
 
5,429 posts, read 4,197,890 times
Reputation: 5730
I'm not opposed to gays in the military, but this judicial activism nonsense needs to end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top