Army discharges gay soldiers

[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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.")

Exactly, and from the limited research I've done, there doesn't appear to be much a circuit split on the issue, or at least not enough of one to convince the Court to take the matter. If another circuit or two followed the 9th, then it might be a different story.

Originally Posted by 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?

When you look at the time it takes to review a case, argue a case (including submitting briefs and replies), and draft a decision, it's an immense amount of time for each case. So, not even getting into the Constitutional limitations, the Court is already pretty limited in the number of cases it can take. So while this may be an important federal issue, there are a bunch of other important federal issues that have other things (including circuit splits) working for their chances of getting before the Court. It takes four out of the nine justices to agree to grant cert.

The problem is that there are a bunch of these types of questions that come up every year, and while this particular issue might be the "sexiest" so to speak (no pun intended), there are other more burning federal issues that require the Court's attention.

As to where a soldier would file the original suit; there are federal rules of procedure that govern where the suit can be filed. It can be filed in federal court if there is diversity of parties (i.e. parties are from different states), or if there is a federal question at issue (i.e. an issue under the federal constitution). As for where to file geographically, that depends on the domicile of the parties, contacts with the state, etc.

That's kind of a quick and dirty explanation, but that's the general idea.

[deepimpact2]

So what? Why is this news? The military has made its policy concerning homosexuality clear. They violated the rule. They were fired. That's what happens when you break the rules in your place of employment.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

So what? Why is this news? The military has made its policy concerning homosexuality clear. They violated the rule. They were fired. That's what happens when you break the rules in your place of employment.

It's news because there's an ongoing debate on the armed forces policies in homosexuality, including "don't ask, don't tell." It's also news because people have debated the constitutional issues. It's a fairly controversial issue.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It's news because there's an ongoing debate on the armed forces policies in homosexuality, including "don't ask, don't tell." It's also news because people have debated the constitutional issues. It's a fairly controversial issue.

I don't need a lecture. You missed my point.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't need a lecture. You missed my point.

A lecture? I posted two sentences. Since when is that a lecture?

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

This is true.

I'm against homosexuality. I'm one of those people who is in favor of the policy. I'm glad some entity in this country, which was allegedly founded on Christian principles, is taking some kind of stand against homosexuality. It may not be "much" but its better than nothing.

I know...thank goodness people are ready to take a stand against sexual orientation. Shame on people being born that way!

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

So what? Why is this news? The military has made its policy concerning homosexuality clear. They violated the rule. They were fired. That's what happens when you break the rules in your place of employment.

As much as I hate this rule, I have to agree with you. The rule is clearly outlined.

I haven't heard much about this issue recently, though. I hope the PTB will re-evaluate its effectiveness, considering the lack of people interested in enlisting.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

As much as I hate this rule, I have to agree with you. The rule is clearly outlined.

I haven't heard much about this issue recently, though. I hope the PTB will re-evaluate its effectiveness, considering the lack of people interested in enlisting.

But there's a big debate about the Constitutionality of the rule itself...so, whenever someone loses their position because of their sexual orientation, the larger issues will be discussed.

Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, there's still an ongoing debate about the merits of the armed forces policy.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, there's still an ongoing debate about the merits of the armed forces policy.

This is true.

I'm against homosexuality. I'm one of those people who is in favor of the policy. I'm glad some entity in this country, which was allegedly founded on Christian principles, is taking some kind of stand against homosexuality. It may not be "much" but its better than nothing.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

So what? Why is this news? The military has made its policy concerning homosexuality clear. They violated the rule. They were fired. That's what happens when you break the rules in your place of employment.

if a company made a policy (in writing) against hiring blacks, do you think that it would be in the news?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by starang21

if a company made a policy (in writing) against hiring blacks, do you think that it would be in the news?

Only if it included a display case with a monkey book.