Army discharges gay soldiers

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think it would be a tough road for them if they sought civil remedies. As best I can remember (I don't have time to research the issue now), the federal courts have been fairly deferential to the armed forces in these types of cases, even after the Lawrence decision regarding privacy. I think that only the 9th Circuit (obviously) has held the armed forces to something higher than the "rational basis" standard in these matters.

ETA: In other words, they're going to have to prove a heck of a lot to make their claim stand up in court.

. . . or sue in California and hope SCOTUS has better things to do.

Strategery, people - it works for lawyers too.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . . or sue in California and hope SCOTUS has better things to do.

Strategery, people - it works for lawyers too.

Absolutely...in saying that the 9th Circuit stands alone, I also meant that if they got it into a US District Court out west, all bets were off.

Forum shopping is usually part of the deal anyway...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Absolutely...in saying that the 9th Circuit stands alone, I also meant that if they got it into a US District Court out west, all bets were off.

Forum shopping is usually part of the deal anyway...

But wouldn't it end up at the Supreme Court anyway? Can you see it not being appealed, unless the armed forces have had a big change of heart lately?

I see this as being one of the issues that will go away as one generation of leadership replaces another and that the policy itself will change. Until then, what could you point to at the federal level that the policy is unconstitutional?

I understand what you mean about the 9th circuit, but would the case really stop there? It might be fun to imagine the bigger cases that could keep the supreme court too busy.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But wouldn't it end up at the Supreme Court anyway? Can you see it not being appealed, unless the armed forces have had a big change of heart lately?

I see this as being one of the issues that will go away as one generation of leadership replaces another and that the policy itself will change. Until then, what could you point to at the federal level that the policy is unconstitutional?

I understand what you mean about the 9th circuit, but would the case really stop there? It might be fun to imagine the bigger cases that could keep the supreme court too busy.

It's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will even hear the case...appellant's lawyer may not file a cert petition, and the Court might not grant the petition if that happens. The Supreme Court reviews such a small number of cases (compared to the number of cert petitions, and the number of federal appellate cases) that it's always a better bet to assume that the Court won't end up reviewing a case.

As to whether it's Constitutional or not...it depends on how the appellate court frames the issue. Depending on the right involved, there are different standards by which the courts could view the issue in light of the Constitution, ranging in scrutiny from the rational basis standard to the strict scrutiny approach. Basically, it's a way of weighing the merits of the policy against any issues of Constitutional infringement. Depending on the standard used, the courts could find that the governmental interest is weighty enough to outweigh those Constitutional concerns.

In this case, I'd imagine it would be presented as some sort of equal protection argument.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will even hear the case...appellant's lawyer may not file a cert petition, and the Court might not grant the petition if that happens. The Supreme Court reviews such a small number of cases (compared to the number of cert petitions, and the number of federal appellate cases) that it's always a better bet to assume that the Court won't end up reviewing a case.

As to whether it's Constitutional or not...it depends on how the appellate court frames the issue. Depending on the right involved, there are different standards by which the courts could view the issue in light of the Constitution, ranging in scrutiny from the rational basis standard to the strict scrutiny approach. Basically, it's a way of weighing the merits of the policy against any issues of Constitutional infringement. Depending on the standard used, the courts could find that the governmental interest is weighty enough to outweigh those Constitutional concerns.

In this case, I'd imagine it would be presented as some sort of equal protection argument.

Really? You think the supreme court wouldn't take the case? I can see if they didn't file the petition, but honestly, they're going to pass on the case involving a high profile US armed forces policy? It's not that I doubt you, so much, just that what you're telling me is amazing in itself. I suppose I hadn't thought it about very critically, but it just seems like something that they'd almost have to handle.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really? You think the supreme court wouldn't take the case? I can see if they didn't file the petition, but honestly, they're going to pass on the case involving a high profile US armed forces policy? It's not that I doubt you, so much, just that what you're telling me is amazing in itself. I suppose I hadn't thought it about very critically, but it just seems like something that they'd almost have to handle.

Of necessity, they take a very, very small percentage of cases brought to them. By far, the most common reason for them to take a case is because of a split in the circuits -- some circuits ruling one way and others ruling differently -- so that resolution by the Supremes is called for. If there's not a split among the circuits (and it's not of Bush v Gore magnitude), it's quite believable that they wouldn't take it -- they very well might wait until more circuits had tackled and developed the issue to see if either a concensus or a split was emerging. (This is commonly referred to as allowing the issue to "perculate.")

[UGAalum94]

I understand that they take a tiny percentage generally. It still surprises me that they would refuse to review a case about a high profile US armed forces policy encoded in federal law. It seems kind of huge simply because of the level the policy originates at.

I wouldn't expect them to be interested in say, individual discrimination cases against specific army commanders, but the fact that it's a federal law seems to me that they'd want to decide it. But I guess I'm assuming the case would be about the nature of the policy itself, rather than the specific cases.

What determines where a soldier would file the original suit?

[PeppyGPhiB]

I think it's time for this policy to be overturned. The Army is admitting convicted criminals and high school dropouts, for crying out loud. Yet they won't even enroll a gay college graduate fluent in Arabic. It's a joke that's hurting our military.

Jon Stewart had a guy on his show the other night talking about his book about this very subject: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...athaniel-Frank

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I think it's time for this policy to be overturned. The Army is admitting convicted criminals and high school dropouts, for crying out loud. Yet they won't even enroll a gay college graduate fluent in Arabic. It's a joke that's hurting our military.

This is a very good point. Even though I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I am wary when the government says you can't do something because of your sexual preference. That is your own, private business.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Skeletor Madonna is a minor technicality. Let us remember the good times.

Be happy that we approve of your decision. You'd be fired if we did not.

True - luckily "Like a Virgin" Madonna has been universally-accepted. Who knows what would have happened if I'd had the same reaction to Cindi Lauper.

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

This is a very good point. Even though I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I am wary when the government says you can't do something because of your sexual preference. That is your own, private business.

That's where I am on this; I think there are certain issues where the government should just back off, short of some serious compelling interest. That's the Libertarian in me breaking out, though.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

That's where I am on this; I think there are certain issues where the government should just back off, short of some serious compelling interest. That's the Libertarian in me breaking out, though.

I think protecting against deviant behavior should be a serious compelling interest. Although my professor swears that "all the good stuff is deviant."

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think protecting against deviant behavior should be a serious compelling interest. Although my professor swears that "all the good stuff is deviant."

Plus that gets into the definition of "deviant" behavior, and how you're evaluating it. I get very uncomfortable, in most cases, where the baseline is religious doctrine (in terms of the government stepping into issues). So, if you're classifying homosexuality as deviant behavior based on its deviation from the accepted norms of Christianity, I'd rather the government stay out of those issues.