- We have an all-volunteer military, which erodes some of the constitutional imperative in this case.
- While times have changed since the policy was implemented in the 1990s, the military has eminently practical reasons for wanting to control the behavior of individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc. There are plenty of ways to run afoul of the UCMJ for heterosexual behavior. This federal judge apparently doesn't care about any of that.
- It's also worth remembering that the status quo ante of DADT was that the military would actively pursue any homosexuals within its ranks and get rid of them. It would be a hell of an unintended consequence if that's how things now happen.
- But as always, my biggest complaint is judicial overreach. This judge is substituting her own policy preference for the wisdom, such as it is, of a former President and the entire military establishment. As a federal judge, she is unelected and unaccountable. While her decision can (and probably will) be appealed, it remains a real problem that she can wield this sort of power.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Different Issue, Same Complaint
I did not serve in the military, so I don't presume to know about the wisdom of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But I would suggest four things about yesterday's ruling by federal court judge that throws the policy out:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think judges who overreach should be subject to punishment. But the punishment wouldn't be written down in law, it would be decided by some unelected person somewhere. This unelected person would just do what seemed right to them.
For instance, in this case, I would make the judge eat liver for breakfast, lunch and dinner until such time that I thought it better for her to eat watermelon sorbet. If her arrogance persisted, she would get overdone noodles and chopsticks.
Post a Comment