Judge Phillips Rules Against Obama Department of Justice DADT Stay Request

Once again a federal judge has exhibited a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution than the Liar-in-Chief (a/k/a Barack Obama). Moreover, she saw through the disingenuous bullshit argued by the DOJ in its application that the injunction against DADT discharges be stayed pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. To put it succinctly, Phillips found that the DOJ had not offered credible proof to justify a stay of the injunction. Obama and DOJ are now faced with seeking a stay from the Ninth Circuit - something Obama will surely do since he's done everything possible to date keep LGBT Americans second or third class citizens. Here are highlights from Phillips' ruling:
*
"A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result," and the propriety of issuing a stay depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Nken, 129 S. Ct. at 1760-61. The decision to grant or deny a stay is committed to the trial court's sound discretion. Id. at 1761.
*
Turning to the circumstances present here, the Court first notes Defendants had an opportunity to, but did not, present any of the evidence or arguments now advanced before the injunction issued. When the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion on September 9, 2010, it set out a briefing schedule regarding the form of the injunction. Although Defendants objected to the issuance of the injunction and its scope, they provided no evidence regarding the alleged disruption or need to revise "dozens of policies and regulations," as described in the Declaration of Clifford L. Stanley ("Stanley Declaration"), Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. (See Stanley Decl. ¶¶ 22-26, 35-36.)
*
Furthermore, to the extent Defendants now submit evidence in the form of the Stanley Declaration, that evidence is conclusory and unpersuasive. It is belied by the uncontroverted evidence presented at trial regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act's effect on military readiness and unit cohesion. . . . The injunction would not impede the Defendants' stated goals of amending policies and regulations and developing education and training programs.
*
[T]o the extent Defendants now argue that stopping discharge under the Act will harm military readiness and unit cohesion, they had the chance to introduce evidence to that effect at trial. Defendants did not do so. The evidence they belatedly present now does not meet their burden to obtain a stay.
*
Finally, the Court must consider whether a stay would serve the public interest. . . . the evidence at trial showed that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act harms military readiness and unit cohesion, and irreparably injures servicemembers by violating their fundamental rights. The public has an interest in military readiness, unit cohesion, and the preservation of fundamental constitutional rights. While Defendants' interests in preventing the status quo and enforcing its laws are important, these interests are outweighed by the compelling public interest of safeguarding fundamental constitutional rights.
*

The complete order entered today can be found here.