This may not be the Administration's plan, but there is an argument to be made that the Supreme Court may serve to decide and issue of law, but that doing so only galvanizes the opposition, and changing situation in unpleasant ways, where an eventual political resolution would not. Cf. Roe v. Wade, or In Re Marriage.

Kathleen Frydl at Berkeley posits that while Brown v. Board was itself a good thing, it may have started the left down the road of relying on the courts when it is often better to effect legal change, rather than broad social consensus (that was pretty much the thesis of my last undergraduate US history course this spring).

Perhaps the Obama Administration is concerned that encouraging the courts to decide will only stoke fears of activist judges, increase the stakes for SCotUS nominations. For that matter, if people are terrified enough of those evil judges, how long will it be before people decide that Geo. Tiller wasn't the only threat? If instead, they can be politically marginalized by demographic change (as with Michigan), perhaps we'll achieve the same outcome, but with less violence.

Edited at 2009-06-08 07:35 pm (UTC)

*sigh*

Didn't take long for the Washington machine to break him to their way of working did it?

I dunno. I'm sure there are reasons for why the Obama Administration does what it does, probably good reasons, but I just feel sold out.

Actually, I think that the Economist political blog perfectly missed the mark - Since the political plurality on both left and right is that DADT is dumb, handing it to the court instead of letting the legislature fix it is perfectly bad.

If it goes to the Court, the Court may find against DADT. DADT goes down in flames, the Conservative Right has a new poster child for the evils of Activist Judges. Win a battle, don't really do the war any favors.

Or the Court may find for DADT. Oh, Nelly, that's even worse - now, not only has the Court affirmed DADT as the law of the land, any Legislative fix is set back years as well. You think it's OK for gays to be in the military? You smarter than the Supreme Court? No, not really getting anywhere good there, either.

If it doesn't go to the Court, it stays on the books until the Legislature takes it off. Given current polling data, that looks like it's coming down the pike, and fairly soon. That isn't to say don't press the issue, but that pressing it at the Supreme Court isn't the best way to press it. Take it to the Legislature and win it on an up-down vote. That's a better win than winning it in Court, and it's much easier (since Legislatures actually do, to at least some degree, listen to the Will Of The People, and Courts aren't supposed to, even if they sometimes do.

I also added some followup over on joedecker's LJ. The more actual review I do of the circumstances, the less crazy the administration looks. As our legal friends observe, Bad Facts make Bad Law.

I think that GWB did it routinely, but now I'll have to go dig up links...

Go read the brief by the way - it really is very clear about Pietrangelo isn't a good case for the court to hear. I also recommend looking at the SDLN brief as well.

Now we just wait for Witt to make its way through the Washington courts, or for Congress to moot the whole thing by just getting rid of the idiocy. Which really would be better, even if it doesn't have the immediate gratification of getting it right now.

Asking, telling... it doesn't matter. The SCOTUS can tell the POTUS to lick his own nutsack on live TV, and he can't do anything to them.

That's not what's being discussed here, though. I think you miss the point entirely. If the government is a party to the litigation, the government's lawyers will file briefs, motions, etc., in the Court, and yes, of course that will have an effect on litigation. (No shit, sherlock.)

If Obama himself is using improper channels to try to dictate what cases the SCOTUS hears and what they don't, he should be impeached. (Belgium lost it's last Prime Minister for something similar, fwiw.)

If the government lawyers filed a motion requesting denial of writ of certiorari, then I don't see what the big deal is, other than that Obama's breaking yet another campaign promise by allowing/supporting his adminstration or the pentagon, or whomever argue against a hearing on DADT. But again, my original statement stands. The SCOTUS can grant certiorari regardless of what the responding party says in their motion. There is no legal way to block the SCOTUS from granting certiorari on a case. (I haven't read the source of this news, so I don't know which scenario is occurring, but either way, my point stands. While there's a nuclear option by which the POTUS can control the SCOTUS, no recent president has even considered that, and thus, the president has no say over the SCOTUS.

So, what precisely is your point?

(Also, what's the general point, maradydd? It's the SCOTUS to be mad at more than any other group.)

A more effective way to prevent the court from hearing the case would be to moot it

Ah. This explains why some people have pegged this as a publicity move to suck up to the Right.

I'm glad someone else worries about a power grab.

LOL Obama supporters.