WASHINGTON, June 8, 2009
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Challenge Rejected
Supreme Court Dismisses Attempt To End Pentagon Policy Toward Gays And Lesbians
-
(AP)
-
Blog Court Watch CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.
The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.
"The Court is signaling the other two branches of government that any change to this policy is going to have to come from them, the executive and legislative branches," CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen, who adds that the decision is not an endorsement of the policy.
"The Court isn't endorsing the policy - it's simply choosing as it usually does to stay out of military policies. Historically the Justices have been willing to give great deference to the White House in military affairs," Cohen writes.
Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal. The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.
The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.
Other decisions made by the Supreme Court Monday include:
Kendall Tankersley was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison, after pleading guilty to arson and attempted arson at U.S. Forest Industries in Medford in December 1998. Tankersley and nine others were convicted of a conspiracy involving 20 arsons across five Western states from 1996-2001.
area north of Flagstaff.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Supreme Court
Add a Comment See all 163 Comments
- It was a favor asked by the White House, if you read the first paragraph.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 7:38 PM : Jun 8, 2009
You need to read paragraphs four and five:
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed .
But what am I saying... since when do you actually read anything? It's easier just to ask the same inane questions over and over again. - Reply to this comment
- I wonder what would happen at the base/post housing office if a married gay couple would apply for base/post housing? A marriage certificate from Iowa might be tendered to prove one partner is the military member's dependent which then authorizes the couple to government housing. Would the military member be chucked out the door at a time when the military has already emptied out the ghettos for recruits and retention is at an all time low? Or would the housing manager authorize off-base housing in order to keep the anomaly quiet but not lose the recruit? Is a life worth putting at risk on the battlefield for our country not worth acknowledging? You can't play it both ways and still maintain integrity. It's time this country decides.
Posted by prof_s at 1:01 AM : Jun 9, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink
There is no such thing as married gay couples in the military and even there were as soon as they applied for housing benefits and show a marriage certificate with two mens or two womens names on them then they would be reported to the couples chain of command because they violated the Don't ask Don't tell policy. The military would not recognize the marriage certificate therefore nulifying their claim for benefits. Beleive me I know I was in the Army for 21 years and know the regulations. Why do people keep grasping at straws over something that has already been decided? Gays can serve as long as they do not violate Don't ask-Don't tell. Why is it so importatnt that everyone know that they are gay? Please give it a rest. The POTUS seems to have already made his stance known on this subject. - Reply to this comment
- I wonder what would happen at the base/post housing office if a married gay couple would apply for base/post housing? A marriage certificate from Iowa might be tendered to prove one partner is the military member's dependent which then authorizes the couple to government housing. Would the military member be chucked out the door at a time when the military has already emptied out the ghettos for recruits and retention is at an all time low? Or would the housing manager authorize off-base housing in order to keep the anomaly quiet but not lose the recruit? Is a life worth putting at risk on the battlefield for our country not worth acknowledging? You can't play it both ways and still maintain integrity. It's time this country decides.
- Reply to this comment
- It was a favor asked by the White House, if you read the first paragraph.
The plan is to wait until the first year after his re-election, when he can make the sweeping social reforms you American Taliban are so against.
So enjoy the interim - your days are numbered, as far as this topic goes. Counts for you, too, Ricky.
LMAO!!
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 7:33 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Yeah a favor asked for by Obama. He did say in his campaign speech/promise that he would overturn "Don't ask-Don't Tell. So I see there is a little bit of a conservative side to Obama. NICE. I am glad to see that the Supreme Court did the right thing. I was in the Army for 21 years and the policy worked just fine. - Reply to this comment
- Dear Mr. Rahm Emanuel. I am sure it is clear to you by now that Mr. Obama is not up to, has never been up to, and will never be up to being President and that you must step in and take control of this administration. Only you can save us. I urge to sit down with Mr. Obama and let him know that in exchange for your taking power, you will allow him to take all the credit for your successes. Sweeten the offer by guaranteeing him a second term and frequent dates to NYC and South Beach.
- Reply to this comment
- Finally, a breath of fresh air from the Supreme Court. One of a number of good decisions today.
Posted by armyoftwelve
It is encouraging. There's also been an overthrowing (coup) of Democrats in New York. America is finally starting to wake up! - Reply to this comment
- The plan is to wait until the first year after his re-election, when he can make the sweeping social reforms you American Taliban are so against.
-CBS---this is a blatantly offensive remark. See your own "rules of engagement" - Reply to this comment
- Finally, a breath of fresh air from the Supreme Court. One of a number of good decisions today.
Posted by armyoftwelve
Absolutely! - Reply to this comment
- Good deal. This has got to drive the radical homosexual agenda pushers bezerk.
- Reply to this comment
- We voted for him on the basis of his campaign promises.
Posted by rhs648 at 2:51 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Yeah, and a lot of women promise their fiances that they are Virgins.
Posted by d7767w
Now that is hard to argue against. - Reply to this comment
- Finally, a breath of fresh air from the Supreme Court. One of a number of good decisions today.
- Reply to this comment
- As long as you're still donating to the cause, that's all that matters.
Posted by LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 4:55 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Youbetcha! Good cause, don't cha think? Help get rid of a communist usurper?
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain at 4:58 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Now if you can only find a way to claim it as a capital loss on your taxes.
Gotta admit, Berg sure has one heckuva racket goin' on. Too bad he's atwo bit svengali that can only dream of perpetuating a fraud on the scale of Madoff. He can only bilk a pittance out of you louts compared to what Bernie raked in.
But Berg's lookin' down his drawers every night before he goes to bed, reassuring himself by repeating -- I have a big peenniss, I have a big peenniss, I have a big peenniss. - Reply to this comment
- yessir...btw cbs wont let you use jackass as a name....i thought about using CounslersFirearms-n-Currency....kinda like a poor mans LGM
Posted by offthetopicandthewagon at 4:55 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Apparantly you can't use a certain part of the female anatomy that rhymes with Dolores as a name either.
But I DID suggest next time Gravy gets booted that he change his nmae to GlassBottomBoat. I wonder how long it would take the prudes at CBS to figure that one out. - Reply to this comment
- Multiple attempts have already been made on this, and all FAILED. And this one will also FAIL. Just like the GOP had FAILED. Any questions?
Posted by troutfishyman at 4:35 PM : Jun 8, 2009
Doesn't matter...he'll either produce it, or be kicked out....more likely he'll be kicked out because of his communist administration.
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain at 4:54 PM : Jun 8, 2009
As long as you're still donating to the cause, that's all that matters. - Reply to this comment
- Holy smokes..
Posted by charlie912 at 4:52 PM : Jun 8, 2009
...Batman.
Ooops, wrong thread. - Reply to this comment
- I'd put my earwax on their wafers.
Posted by charlie912 at 4:49 PM : Jun 8, 2009
And I'd pinch a loaf in their loafers. - Reply to this comment
- Is there a Horace P. in the hizzy?
Posted by LawyersGuns-n-Money_ at 4:47 PM : Jun 8, 2009
fer shizzy my nizzy
Posted by offthetopicandthewagon at 4:48 PM : Jun 8, 2009
How did I freakin' know?
Guess it takes a jackass to know one. - Reply to this comment
- Is there a Horace P. in the hizzy?
- Reply to this comment
- leeanna59
Was I asking you? I didn't think so. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
