Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

DADT: Log Cabin Republicans petition for rehearing in LCR v USA case

DADT trial

By Adam Bink

[scribd id=68685274 key=key-1xddib8ul3hbac43bi6 mode=list]

h/t Kathleen


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  October 13, 2011 at 4:29 pm

  • 2. Ann S.  |  October 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm


  • 3. Alan_Eckert  |  October 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    The best line is in the conclusion:

    "To thus sow the fields of the law with salt is unnecessary and gratuitous."

  • 4. Sheryl Carver  |  October 13, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Great job of calling out the arrogant & legally inappropriate behavior on the part of the 9th Circuit judges! Don’t know how this will turn out, but LCR & their legal team surely are NOT backing down!

  • 5. Bryce  |  October 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    Did we ever find out whether or not it is the case that the Prop 8 Defendants missed a deadline?

  • 6. Kathleen  |  October 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    Bryce, no deadline missed. There's a part of the Fed Rules of Appellate Procedure which gives an extra 3 days when the the deadline computes from a date of service, where the service was by electronic filing.

    I'm finding my way around the FRAP as we go, so I'm not always spot on with my deadline calculations. This same rule came into play recently in the Mass DOMA cases, as well (the reasons the Gill brief is due Oct 27 and not Oct 24).

  • 7. Kathleen  |  October 13, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    UPDATE: Perry

    Proponents' Reply in support of motion to stay pending appeal (order to release trial recordings)

    And motion to exceed page limit:

  • 8. Tasty Salamanders  |  October 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Just wondering would it be incorrect to say that the LCR at minimum want the findings of fact reinstated even if the findings of law isn't? Because of all the legalase I wasn't sure but it seems to suggest that vacating the findings of fact was overstepping their bounds even if vacating the findings of law was a correct decision. I got the same feeling when reading the statements when the decision was first released.

    Or to make it simple the outcome they want in order of least desired to most is:
    1) Re-establishment of findings of fact.
    2) Re-establishment of the entire ruling (findings of fact and law).
    3) Re-establishment of the entire ruling and the government's appeal re-opened.

  • 9. Kathleen  |  October 14, 2011 at 1:04 am

    LCR is arguing is that (1) the case is not moot, and (2) even if it's moot, that does not mean the district court's judgment and previous orders should be vacated. They also argue that, on this second point, it is the district court, not the appeals court, that should decide whether vacature is appropriate.

  • 10. Sagesse  |  October 14, 2011 at 5:11 am

    Didn't expect her to be approved. This is good news.

    Senate confirms lesbian court nominee

  • 11. Gregory in SLC  |  October 14, 2011 at 6:20 am

    I didn't expect this either …love good news! "Activist Judge" inevitably was mentioned…

    “Her record,” said Sessions, “evidences an activist viewpoint…. She has the real potential to be an activist judge.”

  • 12. _BK_  |  October 14, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Dang activist judges.
    Dang activist legislatures.
    Dang activist executive.
    Dang activist electorate.
    Dang activist… wait… who else can we blame?

  • 13. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2011 at 7:57 am

    "activist" voters?….. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 14. Alan_Eckert  |  October 14, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Don't forget about blaming gays for everything like the economy and the divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

  • 15. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  October 14, 2011 at 9:54 am

    I thought we only got blamed for weather (natural disasters), and wars. LOL

  • 16. _BK_  |  October 16, 2011 at 5:19 am

    Next thing you know, we'll be the reason those space aliens invade. 😉

  • 17. Ronnie  |  October 14, 2011 at 6:47 am

    Awesome….. <3…Ronnie

  • 18. Sam_Handwich  |  October 14, 2011 at 6:59 am

    An interesting tidbit on this….

    I called Sen Scott Brown's office yesterday to ask why he'd voted against cloture on the president's jobs bill. The staffer read me a statement which boiled down to "the bill wasn't bi-partisan enough, we need to stop the partisan gridlock in Washington".

    SO, i quickly pointed out to the staffer that the "bi-partisan" BS was obviously empty rhetoric, because Brown voted against Alison Nathan's nomination on a PARTY LINE VOTE just two days later!

    Left the staffer stammering 🙂

  • 19. Sheryl_Carver  |  October 14, 2011 at 7:52 am

    "Logic? We don't need no stinking logic!"

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!