So to speak. Jason Mazzone has this commentary on the administration's "major disruption" rationale for staying Judge Phillips' injunction to halt enforcement of DADT. It's one I hadn't thought of, but it's telling:
Courts have broad discretion when they craft remedies to cure constitutional violations. And when remedying a constitutional violation requires overhauling the organization or longstanding practices of a government entity, courts always aim for an orderly transition if possible. There are many examples. Most obviously, segregated schools were not desegregated overnight but pursuant to a multi-step process overseen by the courts over an extended period of time.
And of course, as Judge Phillips has pointed out, the government did have an opportunity to suggest modifications to the order and didn't bother.
Read it -- it's short but right on target.
(I'm really starting to think that the DoJ is staffed by lawyers all personally vetted by Monica Goodling, with any that showed signs of competence weeded out.)
No comments:
Post a Comment