[gruntpain1775]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_ ... n_military

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

can they do that? Just make a ruling blanket like that?

 

[ookoshi]

Yes, the judge has to make a ruling so it can get appealed and make its way up through the system to eventually go before the Supreme Court. Even D.C. vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago started out in a federal district court, and ended up having nationwide ramifications.

 

[gruntpain1775]

Let me ask it in another way. Is it legal for a Judge to make a worldwide ruling? If I take the state of Florida to court for not allowing X, then the ruling only affects the circuit that judge is in, (9th, etc) not a WORLD WIDE judgment. Right?

 

[smn]

The US military is worldwide... other than that, how much faith do you put in journalists reporting facts?

 

[spector]

Let me ask it in another way. Is it legal for a Judge to make a worldwide ruling? If I take the state of Florida to court for not allowing X, then the ruling only affects the circuit that judge is in, (9th, etc) not a WORLD WIDE judgment. Right?

...we have troops stationed all over the world?

 

[ookoshi]

The question gruntpain is asking is whether the court can actually make their decisions apply to the entire military, or only the parts of the military within the 9th circuit.

I think so. If a company has offices in both Arizona and New Mexico (9th and 10th circuits), and they are involved in a lawsuit that forces them to do something as a whole, their New Mexico branch is not immune from the decision, as they are a single entity. The defendant in this case is the United States, and is treated as a single entity. However, their decision is not binding precedent to the other districts, so while there may be an injunction against the military enforcing don't ask don't tell globally, the law is still technically constitutional in the other districts. These inconsistencies between circuits are why the Supreme Court takes a lot of the cases it does, so I expect the matter to go up the ladder shortly. Plus, I don't think this ruling is going to make the gays come out en masse until the Supreme Court rules, so I doubt it will change much practically except that people who accidentally get outed somehow will get to stay in for now and won't be sure of their long term status until after the Supreme Court hears it, as either the Appeals or the Supreme Court could reverse.

 

[gruntpain1775]

I understand what you are getting at. And i understand why a case would go before the SCOTUS. What I am getting at is in this case the judge has said the ruling applies world wide to the military. If she can do that, then it would could be assumed that any judge could do that with other things, make the SCOTUS no longer needed.

I have always understood the circuits ruling applies only to their circuit, regardless of the fact the entity being suied has mulitple places it operates. To make a world wide ruling would seem like oversteeping that jurisdiction.

 

[gruntpain1775]

Im not asking the validity of her ruling on the gay rights. Could care less. Im asking about the judges authority to issue a ruling that encompasses other areas outside her jurisdiction.