http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/23/is-janet-napolitano-more-powerful-than-barack-obama Comments On: Is Janet Napolitano More Powerful Than Barack Obama? by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by EndDADT]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:28:07 -0700 The Stranger "do you really want the president to just pick and choose which laws to enforce on the basis of politics?"
Have you heard of Bush's signing statements? They allowed the president to pick and choose which laws to enforce on the basis of politics for the past EIGHT YEARS!
Let's have some picking and choosing that is actually helpful and fair to the people and safety of this country, like a PEO to stop loss from the military due to sexual orientation!
Posted by duckie]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:33:32 -0700 The Stranger Gbtsatra @11, etc. etc. ad nauseum, a lot of good your Harvard effin' law degree is doing you if all you can say is "you don't know what you're talking about" rather than, say, explaining why. The privilege of decrying someone else an idiot only comes with the capability and effort of actually stating a case. Saying you can and then not doing so only makes you look like someone with an ego problem.

The question is no longer what the president can or cannot do, so much as why he's not taking action. We're not waiting on a bill to repeal DADT that is tied up in committee, we're waiting for the bill to get written up in the first place, and asking why the Fierce Urgency of Now hasn't compelled it to get written.

And in the meantime, yes, Obama can suspend continued enforcement of the anti-gay regulations of the UCMJ, and it's part of his fucking job to do so, i.e. to make sure the execution of those laws serve the spirit of their original intent, not merely consequence of their letters.

One doesn't need a Harvard education to be able to determine these things, since all this information is freely accessible online. It's a common misnomer to presume a credential gives one's voice the power of authority as it might within a religious institution. No, an education provides you the tools to make an argument, but you still have to use those tools and craft an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

MikeB @9 et. al. With rare exception, gays in the military are outed due to circumstances, often due to ones that are outright unfair, say the breach of confidence of an attorney or psychotherapist, or one officer violating the privacy of another, say reading his diary. In a lot of cases, one might be out to trusted colleagues, and one falling out, or one snoopy interloper later, the poor soldier is under review. In these cases, the one who violated the privacy of the gay are seldom, if ever, disciplined for such a breach.
Posted by Uriel-238]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:02:26 -0700 The Stranger http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=97…
Posted by lpyoung]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:59:23 -0700 The Stranger Posted by JonboyDC]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:56:06 -0700 The Stranger
The policy really is basically, Don't Tell, Don't Get Caught.
Posted by gexxor]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:46:18 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by Legally Right

___________________________________________________________________

Your post had nothing to do with this article. This article is comparing apples to apples. Two of the same issues, so go ahead and keep name calling if you like, but instead of calling Dan stupid, you may want to point out exactly why you think he is, and use a specific example of why he is wrong. Because if you don't it becomes obvious that you are merely a shill for the administration.
Posted by Cam]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:04:24 -0700 The Stranger
If you don't want to listen to headlines or the news about Iran, just skip to the 9:20 mark.

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2009/6…
Posted by jade]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:03:43 -0700 The Stranger
Well, at least Americans are not trying to ship you to festering Third World hellholes.
Posted by Obama health plan now.]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:09:48 -0700 The Stranger
Well, at least Americans are not trying to ship you to festering Third World hellholes.
Posted by Obama health plan now.]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:09:44 -0700 The Stranger
No, I want him to pick and choose which laws to enforce on the basis of whether or not a law violates peoples rights.
Posted by redwulf25_ci]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:59:09 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Original Andrew]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:52:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ev]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:43:20 -0700 The Stranger
Yep, the number of Americans who hate widows and orphans is vanishingly small. I can't even think of any derogatory slang terms for either widows or orphans. Helping them out expends virtually no political capital.

Posted by Obama health plan now]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:26:35 -0700 The Stranger
More than that, there's a large lag between when the paperwork can be done, and when the US government will actually do their thing, so a person can have been married for longer than the two years, but because the government is slow to act, they miss out on their opportunity to stay as a matter of government timing.
Posted by JudT]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:21:07 -0700 The Stranger
And YES, US immigration law is in fact cold and discriminatory. For more information please visit http://www.immigrationequality.org/
Posted by dimitri]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:09:43 -0700 The Stranger
First of all, it's permanent residency, not citizenship. Second, slavery has been abolished. The spouse is free to divorce once s/he has a green card.

The two-year rule prevents sham marriages whose only purpose is to get green cards. Otherwise, an enterprising citizen might set up shop in a van outside a Vegas wedding chapel, getting married on Monday and divorced on Tuesday.

Someone who got married in good faith, expecting to make it last a lifetime, should not be punished by a law designed to weed out con artists.
Posted by Obama health plan now]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:49:17 -0700 The Stranger
Citizenship is granted to the spouse for the BENEFIT OF THE CITIZEN. If the citizen passed away, then there's no purpose to allowing naturalization. The way you've written this entry, it's as if the widow(er) was granted something that was never granted in the first place. Besides, if the citizen lived, then there's no guarantee the spouse would have become a citizen anyway.

Please take a look at the way citizenship works in the rest of the world. It is the most relaxed law with the most loopholes, and yet people still complain as if US law is oppressive. Give me a break.
Posted by Nun]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:22 -0700 The Stranger
Just wondering...
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:34:54 -0700 The Stranger Posted by gloomy gus]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:33:39 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Obama dude's got a lot on his plate]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:31:56 -0700 The Stranger Posted by michaeltimus]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:30:55 -0700 The Stranger
But as has been pointed out many times, Obama has a ready-made excuse for suspending dadt during the current military emergency. I think, charitably, he wants to keep gays under the bus only until he can get his health care plan through. The wingnuts are jumping on him for taking his family out for ice cream while freedom-loving Iranians are being gunned down on the streets of Teheran -- working on gay issues while Iran burns would be seen as a lack of prioritization.

Congress recesses in August -- maybe he'll be able to shift focus to gay issues in September.
Posted by Obama health plan now]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:28:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by kim in portland]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:13:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Lawman]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:10:46 -0700 The Stranger