JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS USDOJ; CONGRATS TO A FAIR MAN

JEFF SESSIONS IS SWORN IN AS NEW USDOJ:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RIGHT MAN FOR THIS POST.

HE ISN'T RACIST & WILL BE FAIR TO BLACK PEOPLE.

SESSIONS WILL ALSO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION RELATED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT.


Sources: Fox News, White House, YouTube

***** Sessions Sworn In as Attorney General as Trump Signs 3 Executive Orders

Vice President Mike Pence swore in Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general at the White House Thursday.

Just prior to the ceremony, President Donald Trump announced three executive orders designed to restore safety in America.

"These executive actions continue to deliver on my campaign promises," the president said.

The orders instruct the Department of Justice to go after criminal cartels, to form a taskforce to reduce violent crime in the country and to implement a plan to stop crimes targeting law enforcement officials.

"It's a shame what's been happening to our truly great law enforcement officers. That's gonna stop as of today," Trump said.

The Senate voted on Wednesday evening to confirmSen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as attorney general.

Despite bitter and outspoken resistance from Senate Democrats - particularly in the last 24 hours - Sessions was elected as the nation's 84th attorney general along a near-party line vote.

Sessions became just the fifth Cabinet nominee approved by the Senate, joining Trump's choices for Defense, Homeland Security, Education and State.

On "The First 100 Days" tonight, Charles Krauthammer said that Sessions' confirmation was never in doubt.

"Everybody has known that Sessions was going to be confirmed. What we saw over the last 24 hours or so was kabuki theater," Krauthammer said. "The Democrats are completely powerless."

He said the Democratic opposition to Sessions was "all for show," as they tried to placate their base, which is still furious about the party's devastating defeat in the election.

Voter ID Suppression Laws Disenfranchise 50% Of Registered Voters In 2012; POLL TAXES!

Increasing Numbers of Registered Voters Could Lose Right to Vote because of New ID Laws

Generally speaking, election tacticians for both major parties pursue two strategies: make sure your supporters actually go to the polls on Election Day and try to persuade undecided voters to lean your way when they cast their ballots.

But this year, Republicans have aggressively added a new tactic…limiting the number of Democrats who are able to vote.

They have done this by passing state laws requiring voters to present ID, often with photos, on the assumption that voters who are too old or too poor to have photo IDs are more likely to vote Democratic.

For example, new laws requiring voters in Pennsylvania and Mississippi to show ID at polling places could result in thousands not voting in November.

State elections officials in Pennsylvania say more than three quarters of a million registered voters do not have the most common required documentation: a drivers license or ID card from the state Transportation Department.

In Philadelphia alone, more than 186,000 registered voters (18% of the city’s total registration) lack a license or state ID.

Many of these voters could be turned away in November unless they can provide the above forms of identification or a U.S. passport, student ID card, current military identification or ID cards issued to government employees.

The percentage of registered voters statewide at risk of not being allowed to vote is 9.2%, out of 8.2 million people.

The administration of Governor Tom Corbett had previously claimed that only 1% of registered voters did not have the required photo ID.

The new law was adopted by Republican lawmakers and Corbett over the objections of Democrats who argued that the restriction would disenfranchise thousands of voters, especially the poor, elderly and young.

A similar conundrum faces voters in Mississippi, where the voter ID law has a Catch-22 aspect.

Those who need to obtain an ID to qualify to vote must show a certified birth certificate, but for those who don’t have a birth certificate, they need to show an ID to get one.

Besides Pennsylvania and Mississippi, five other states have passed strict photo ID laws…Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin, although Wisconsin’s law is being challenged in the courts.

Texas and South Carolina have also passed such laws, but they are being challenged by the federal government.

In Virginia, a law enacted in May requires those who show up without ID to cast a provisional ballot and then present ID within a few days for their ballots to count.



After 50 and 70 Years of Voting, Two 93-Year-Olds Sue to Keep Right to Vote without Photo ID

Viviette Applewhite, 93, of Philadelphia has become the face of a civil liberties lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania for requiring voters to show identification before voting. The new requirement was signed into law by Republican Governor Tom Corbett on March 14.

The wheelchair-bound Applewhite says she has voted since 1960, but won’t be able to do so this November because of the new legal requirement. She doesn’t possess a driver’s license and is unable to obtain a birth certificate from the state, she says, making it impossible for her to show the requisite ID at the polls.

Another 93-year-old plaintiff, Bea Bookler, first voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940. She has the documents needed to obtain a valid photo ID, but state law requires that she present them in person and she is too frail to do so.

Representing Applewhite, Bookler and eight other plaintiffs are the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Color People. They contend the law will disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible Pennsylvanians who lack ID.

A 2006 survey by the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that about 13 million adult American citizens lack the kind of proof needed to comply with voter ID laws.


View Larger Map


Sources: AllGov, MSNBC, Political Articles, TPM Muckracker, Uptake Video, Young Philly Politics, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Voter ID Laws (Texas) vs Pres. Obama's Administration & Eric Holder

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NBC Interviews Attorney General Eric Holder On Voter ID

Attorney General Eric Holder sat down with NBC's Pete Williams to discuss voter ID laws on Tuesday.
The Justice Department blocked Texas' new photo voter ID law earlier this week.

The federal government will not preclear a photo voter identification law signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) because it would have a greater impact on Hispanic voters, a Justice Department official said in a letter to state authorities on Monday.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas were either 46.5 percent or 120 percent more likely than average voter to lack a form of photo ID, according to data the state submitted to DOJ. The first data set was sent in September and the second in January, though Texas has refused to tell federal authorities which they believe is more accurate. The first data set said that 6.3 percent of Hispanic registered voters lacked photo ID compared to 4.3 percent of the general pool of registered voters, while the second data set said 10.8 percent of Hispanic registered voters lacked ID compared to 4.9 percent of registered voters.

“In conclusion, the state has not met its burden of proving that, when compared to the benchmark, the proposed requirement will not have a retrogressive effect, or that any specific features of the proposed law will prevent or mitigate that retrogression,” DOJ Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez wrote in a letter to state authorities. “Additionally, the state has failed to demonstrate why it could not meet its stated goals of ensuring electoral integrity and deterring ineligible voters from voting in a manner that would have avoided this retrogressive effect.”

Perez also wrote that Texas “has not provided an explanation” for the disparate results. “More significantly, it declined to offer an opinion on which of the two data sets is more accurate,” he wrote.

Texas preemptively sued Attorney General Eric Holder back in January for not preclearing the law in a timely manner. The Lone Star state claimed it did not collect racial and ethnic data on its citizens in an attempt to “facilitate a colorblind electoral process.”

Texas had argued that DOJ had to let their law go into effect because the Civil Rights Division precleared a similar Georgia voter ID law during the Bush administration. Georgia’s law, however, was approved by political appointees over the objections of career staffers.

State officials first asked DOJ to preclear the law in July. DOJ followed up with a letter in September asking for more information on how the law would be implemented as well as a breakdown of how many of the 605,576 residents the state said do not have a Texas drivers license or photo ID card had Spanish surnames. Federal officials said in November that the data Texas provided wasn’t adequate and Texas sued shortly after they submitted additional data on Jan. 12.


View Larger Map


Sources: NBC News, Talking Points Memo, Google Maps

Educational Discrimination Still A Problem In The South! Federal Funds & Segregation

A Century Of Racial Segregation In Education 1849-1950

After the Abolition of slavery in the United States, three Constitutional amendments were passed to grant newly freed African Americans legal status: the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth provided citizenship, and the Fifteenth guaranteed the right to vote. In spite of these amendments and civil rights acts to enforce the amendments, between 1873 and 1883 the Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions that virtually nullified the work of Congress during Reconstruction.


Regarded by many as second-class citizens, blacks were separated from whites by law and by private action in transportation, public accommodations, recreational facilities, prisons, armed forces, and schools in both Northern and Southern states. In 1896 the Supreme Court sanctioned legal separation of the races by its ruling in H.A. Plessy v. J.H. Ferguson, which held that separate but equal facilities did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

Beginning in 1909, a small group of activists organized and founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). They waged a long struggle to eliminate racial discrimination and segregation from American life. By the middle of the twentieth century their focus was on legal challenges to public-school segregation. Two major victories before the Supreme Court in 1950 led the NAACP toward a direct assault on Plessy and the so-called "separate-but-equal" doctrine.



Imprisoned for Teaching Free Blacks

The prohibition of education for African Americans had deep roots in American history. According to the 1847 Virginia Criminal Code: "Any white person who shall assemble with slaves, [or] free negroes . . . for the purpose of instructing them to read or write, . . .shall be punished by confinement in the jail . . . and by fine .

. ." Under this code, Margaret Douglass, of Norfolk, Virginia, a former slaveholder, was arrested, imprisoned, and fined when authorities discovered that she was teaching "free colored children" of the Christ's Church Sunday school to read and write. In her defense, Mrs. Douglass noted that she was not an abolitionist, and did not engage in undermining the institutions of the South.

Upholding School Segregation: The Roberts Case

Five-year-old Sara Roberts was forced to walk past several white schools to reach the "colored" primary school. Her father, Benjamin Roberts, a black printer, filed a lawsuit against the city of Boston to integrate public schools.

In 1849 reformer and future U.S. Senator Charles Sumner represented Roberts and challenged school segregation in the Boston court. Separate schools for African Americans, he argued, in effect branded "a whole race with the stigma of inferiority and degradation." The Massachusetts Supreme Court, however, upheld segregation in a widely cited ruling. Influential Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw noted that Boston's separate schools possessed substantially equal facilities and declared that school integration would only increase racial prejudice.

The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the Federal Government to protect the civil rights of individuals, including African Americans, against state encroachment, was ratified in 1868.

The amendment also defined national citizenship and extended it to former slaves freed by the Civil War. This 1866 letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase is from Associate Justice Stephen J. Field, whose judicial opinions would significantly influence subsequent interpretations of the amendment. Field termed the amendment, which had recently been passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification, "just what we need" and said it showed that "the American people do not intend to give up all that they have gained by the war."

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

By the time Homer A. Plessy, an octoroon (one-eighth Negro blood), who lived in New Orleans, challenged that city's right to segregate public transportation by riding in a Whites Only rail car, the constitutional amendments, passed after the Civil War and written to provide protections and rights for Negro citizens, had been eroded. The Louisiana state courts ruled against Plessy, and his subsequent appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court was denied in 1896. The impact of Plessy was to relegate blacks to second-class citizenship. They were separated from whites by law and by private action in transportation, public accommodations, recreational facilities, churches, cemeteries and school in both Northern and Southern states.

The National Negro Committee, 1909

In 1908 socialist William English Walling published an exposé about a bloody race riot in Springfield, Illinois. As a result, in January 1909, an interracial group assembled in his apartment to discuss proposals for an organization that would advocate the civil and political rights of African Americans. The group decided to issue a "call" for a national conference on the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, February 12, 1909. As a result of the "call," the National Negro Conference was held in New York on May 31 and June 1, 1909.

At the second annual meeting, May 12, 1910, the Committee adopted the formal name of the organization--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Among the "first and immediate steps" listed at the bottom of this founding document is "That there be equal educational opportunities for all and in all the States, and that public school expenditure be the same for Negro and white child."

The Pink Franklin Case

The NAACP undertook its first major legal case in 1910 by defending Pink Franklin, a black South Carolina sharecropper accused of murder. When Franklin left his employer after receiving an advance on his wages, a warrant was sworn for his arrest under an invalid state law. Armed policemen arrived at Franklin's cabin before dawn to serve the warrant without stating their purpose and a gun battle ensued, killing one officer. Franklin was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death. The NAACP interceded, and Franklin's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Eventually, he was set free in 1919. In this letter to Mary White Ovington, Albert Pillsbury, an attorney and NAACP supporter, recommends the appeal to South Carolina Governor Martin F. Ansel.

Buchanan v. Warley

The NAACP sought out cases that infringed on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in order to set legal precedents and ultimately secure the constitutional rights of African Americans. An early victory was Buchanan v. Warley, a case involving residential segregation in Louisville, Kentucky. Moorfield Storey, the NAACP's first president and a constitutional attorney, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1917. The Court reversed the decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, ruling that the Louisville ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a result of the ruling, whites resorted to private restrictive covenants, in which property owners agreed to sell or rent to whites only. The Supreme Court declared this practice unconstitutional in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). Buchanan v. Warley was cited in the Brown decision to challenge the legality of segregated public schools.


View Larger Map

Sources: Library Of Congress, Youtube, Google Maps

Obamacare Scores 4th Federal Court Win! Declared Constitutional!

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

President Obama's controversial health care law got a major boost Wednesday when the first ruling by a federal appeals court affirmed that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.

The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.

The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.

A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.

An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues.

The White House celebrated the ruling on its blog.

"Today the Affordable Care Act, and the millions of Americans and small businesses benefitting from it scored another victory when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is constitutional," wrote Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor.

"We're gratified by today's ruling, which came from judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents who agreed that the law's individual responsibility provision (sometimes called the minimum coverage provision) is constitutional," she wrote.

Supporters of the law also took a victory lap.

"Today's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of health coverage to tens of millions of people is a victory of common sense," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

"Every step of the way the health care debate has been polluted by partisan politics," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now (HCAN). "Today's decision, made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, is immune to that criticism. The court ruled on the merits, and it's as simple as that."

The Justice Department also cheered the ruling, saying it will continue to "vigorously defend the health care reform statue in any litigation challenging it."

"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, White House, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Awkward "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Legal Dilemma

Obama Requests Emergency Stay Of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Order

Finding itself in a strange legal position, the Obama Administration filed an emergency request Wednesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the military from allowing openly gay troops from serving.

In effect, the administration wants to continue barring gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"They are in a very bizarre position, frankly of their own making," said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

In court documents filed in San Francisco, California, the administration argued that don't ask, don't tell should remain intact for now.

The administration argued that changing it abruptly "risks causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute."

Toobin said the administration would like Congress to deal with the issue on a political level and doesn't want the courts to take it on unilaterally.

The administration had already filed a motion Tuesday asking U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips to stay her order last month that banned the enforcement of the policy.

When Phillips denied the request, government lawyers took their case to the 9th Circuit.

If the 9th Circuit overturns Phillips' ruling and Congress does not take any action, then don't ask, don't tell could be back.

"And the Obama administration would be responsible for that," Toobin said.

The Log Cabin Republicans, plaintiffs in the case that Phillips ruled on, said Wednesday that the group remained fully committed to defending this worldwide injunction because it is what is best for all service members.

"It respects their fundamental constitutional rights," said Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the group. "We'll continue to defend this ruling all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."

The group was expecting the 9th Circuit to consider the request for a stay in the next five days. By the time there is a court ruling, don't ask, don't tell would have been suspended for almost two weeks.

The Pentagon has already begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The guidance from the personnel and readiness office was sent to recruiting commands Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

Berle said so far, there have not been any incidents of consequence the administration feared would occur.

"The armed forces continues to move along and succeed because it is the greatest military in the world," Berle said.

Dan Choi, an infantry officer who was discharged under the don't ask, don't tell policy, turned in paperwork Wednesday to re-enlist in the Army. He said the Obama administration ought not to lift a finger to defend discrimination.

"They should walk their talk," Choi told CNN after re-enlisting.

The Obama administration has said it needs more time to work with the Pentagon to repeal the policy, blasted by critics as blatantly discriminatory.

"This president has made a commitment, and it's not a question of whether that program, whether that policy will change, but when," Obama adviser David Axelrod told CNN. "We're at the end of a process with the Pentagon to make that transition, and we're going to see it through."


Sources: CNN

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Ruling To Be Appealed By Obama Admin.

Obama Administration Expected To Appeal Ruling On Gays In U.S. Military

The Obama administration is expected to appeal as soon as Wednesday a federal judge's ruling that halted the Defense Department from enforcing its policy that bars openly gay people from military service, according to senior administration officials familiar with the government's plans.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Philips issued an injunction Tuesday that bans enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy throughout the military services.

While the government has up to 60 days to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco, California, officials familiar with the case said that could happen in the next day or two.







Federal Judge Orders U.S. Military To Stop Enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy


A Federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. military to stop enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, putting an end to the ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' permanent worldwide injunction -- praised by gay rights organizations -- orders the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced" under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The judge, a Clinton appointee based in the Central District of California, previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members' Fifth Amendment rights to due process and freedom of speech, but had delayed issuing the injunction.

The military was sued by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler would say only that the department is "reviewing the ruling." The department has 60 days to appeal, but is not required to do so.

The Defense Department is reviewing the ruling to determine whether it has immediate impact and is consulting with the Justice Department, Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said.

Air Force lawyers in a recent case argued the military -- not the courts -- is in the best position to evaluate and enforce the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

President Barack Obama is pushing for a repeal of the controversial policy. A bill currently before Congress would overturn the measure after a Pentagon review is completed in December.

In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. "Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights," the judge wrote.

More than 12,500 people have been booted from the military since "don't ask, don't tell" went into effect. Along with barring known gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving, the policy prevents the military from asking them about it.

Log Cabin Republicans praised the ruling but urged "caution by servicemembers considering coming out at this time, as the Obama administration still has the option to appeal."

The group said the ruling is a victory for strong national defense.

"No longer will our military be compelled to discharge servicemembers with valuable skills and experience because of an archaic policy mandating irrational discrimination," it said in a statement following the ruling.

Servicemembers United, which describes itself as the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, also hailed the judge's ruling but urged gays who serve to be careful about coming out now.

"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said executive director Alexander Nicholson.

The ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee called on the administration to immediately file a motion to stay the injunction so Congress can address the issue.

"We are a nation at war. This decision could have a negative impact on military and family readiness since the Department of Defense is unprepared to address the issues that are bound to arise from such a hasty change, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-California, said in a statement.

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California-Santa Barbara, said he expects the Obama administration to appeal Tuesday's order.

"The case could be done next week if the administration decides not to appeal, or it could take five years if there is an appeal, or Congress could move faster than the Justice Department, which would render this case moot," said Belkin, whose institute researches sexual minorities in the military and advocates an end to the ban.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Youtube

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Stopped By A Federal Judge!

Federal Judge Orders U.S. Military To Stop Discharging Gays


A Federal judge Tuesday ordered the government to immediately stop discharges of gay service members under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips found the policy unconstitutional in September. On Tuesday, she rejected an Obama administration request to delay an injunction and ordered enforcement of the policy permanently stopped.

The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the government is under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.

The Federal government is reviewing the ruling and has no immediate comment, said Tracy Schmaler, spokesman for the Justice Department.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional on Sept. 9 after a two-week nonjury trial and said she would issue a nationwide injunction. But she asked first for input from Department of Justice attorneys and the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that filed the lawsuit in 2004 to stop the ban's enforcement.

The Log Cabin Republicans asked her for an immediate injunction so the policy can no longer be used against any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world.

"The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country," said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.

Government attorneys objected, saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war. They had asked Phillips to limit her ruling to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military service members.

The Department of Justice attorneys also said Congress should decide the issue — not her court.

Phillips disagreed, saying the law doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services by hurting recruiting during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members with critical skills and training.

She said the law violates the free-speech and due process rights of service members after listening to the testimonies of military officers who have been discharged under the policy.

Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her ruling to end the ban — but Department of Justice attorneys are not likely to stay mum since Obama has made it clear he wants Congress to repeal the policy.

"The president has taken a very consistent position here, and that is: 'Look, I will not use my discretion in any way that will step on Congress' ability to be the sole decider about this policy here,' " said Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that supports a repeal.

Gay rights advocates say they worry they lost a crucial opportunity to change the law when Senate Republicans opposed the defense bill earlier this month because of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal provision.

If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

Woods said the administration should be seizing the opportunity to let a judge do what politics has been unable to do.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but bans those who are gay from serving openly. Under the 1993 policy, service men and women who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base, are subject to discharge.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Youtube