10-13-2010, 04:06 PM
Doc wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
But a soldier just won exactly such a case less than a month ago...
No she didn't.
That wasn't a tort claim. She wasn't suing for redress of a civil injury. It was a Constitutional challenge... the same as the lawsuit in the OP.
Others can try to sue on the same grounds, but since there's a judicial order already out there those cases are likely to be thrown out or held indefinitely pending final outcome (appeal to the SCOTUS) of the present DADT case. Lawsuits for financial recovery are verboten.
My statements stand.
But she was awarded a financial recovery by the ninth circuit, and this case established a standard that PREVIOUS dismissals under DADT will be null and void and the soldier must be reinstated with back pay IF the military cannot prove that the soldier's presence harmed morale. The order from yesterday makes pending and future cases go away, but what about those already discharged? I think that the precedent has been set that they can sue to be reinstated. Other such cases are pending right now before federal courts. It's too late for those people to be helped by yesterday's ruling, so they should have recourse.