objection

This is a huge story and one that could make or break the Obama presidency:

As promised, a federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Judge Virginia Philips last month found the policy unconstitutional in her ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans and said she would issue an injunction blocking the Defense Department from enforcing the policy and discharging openly gay servicemembers.

The Justice Department objected.

"A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year-old policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's operations, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations and other demanding military activities around the globe," attorneys said in their objection, filed in U.S. District Court in California.

The big question now is rather President Obama will abide by the decision or if he will try some legal maneuvering around it.

Russ Feingold has issued the following statement regarding his walk out of today's hearings on the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage:

“Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.”

In my poll last month I asked what issue people thought would be the greatest
grounds for impeachment. The warrantless spying came in first but a lot of
people thought the Downing Street Memos were of greater importance.

If that poll were run now, the outcome might be different. Today another
document has surfaced in the U.K. proving Bush was determined to invade Iraq two
month's before the actual invasion:

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House
on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr
Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a
second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned
Iraqi weapons programme

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military
planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have
raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the
president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

Read article in full
here.

There can be no doubt that Bush wasn't concerned with WMD in Iraq. He wanted
to invade no matter what and he did not give a shit what the U.N. had to say
about it. The time to impeach is now.