Obama Disappoints Gay Groups By Refusing To Ban Discrimination Against Gay Federal Contractors

[The Philosopher]

78. I'm disappointed in the President as well

but my disappointment doesn't make me a Republican nor does it make me forgetful of how the government works. And it certainly doesn't make me out of touch with reality. These are the three arguments presented by several posters on this issue and it's entirely insensitive. And, I think, that's the point. It is entirely insensitive to promote a President over people, especially a discriminated people. The following arguments are insufficient against the complaints that the President should have issued an ENDA EO and, when addressed, show they are only a defense of the President himself, not of his actions or reasons. After all, regardless of the arguments, it’s show that if you’re unhappy with the President, you’re voting for a Republican.

I’ve seen basically four arguments presented in defense of not issuing an EO. It’s possibly I’ve overlooked others, as I know I have on some that I see as irrelevant or addressed already in the responses to the four arguments.

The four are:

Argument 1: An EO can be overturned by the next President

Argument 2: An EO would invite Congress not to do its Job

Argument 3: An EO would be attacked by the SCOTUS

Argument 4: Such an attack would negate the EO's effect and stall ENDA.


Argument One uses a factual reality that's faced by all legislation and even the identity of the country. What the next four years brings cannot be guaranteed in the preceding years. We could get a Republican President; we could also get a Republican President, Congress, and Supreme Court. So if the President should be afraid to issue an EO that does good simply because the next in line can undo it, Congress should have similar fears. The fact the latter is hard to achieve than the former has no relevance: it is still a factual reality we all face. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.

Argument Two is an absurdity. It both states that Congress is waiting for the President to issue orders, and upon failure does the job for him; and that Congress has such a view of itself that if the President made any comment or act that they see as their domain, they throw a hissy. The EO would not invite Congress not to discuss and vote upon ENDA, as an EO cannot mute the rules of Congress. Nor can it mute the importance of such a legislation, which would reach beyond the EO, and be more important. Therefore, this argument doesn't address reality (argument two, I mean).

Argument Three assumes two things: one, that if attacked it wouldn't be useful, which is wrong; two, that the President has already lost against the SCOTUS. Now, I'm not much for Republicans like most (I'm sure) of my Democratic colleagues, but just because the SCOTUS is a Republican one doesn't mean the President is an idiot. Someone would argue against the EO and the President would argue back, and the SCOTUS decides who has the better argument. That's it. The review by SCOTUS isn't a reason to issue an EO. In fact, it's more likely to be helpful, as it is one more point (other than the world not ending when LGBTers aren't discriminated against on the job) that ENDA should be passed.

The Fourth argument is a sub-argument of Three and a reflection of 1 and 2. If the SCOTUS reviewed, it is argued, the EO then it wouldn't be implemented and Congress would be unable to pass ENDA. This is a foolish argument, for in order to be reviewed someone must issue a complaint. Then the complainer would have to provide proof of a problem with the EO. It would be nice if, like with Health Care legislation, such proof was aired out in public. Because, in my lifetime at least, 2012 has been nice to showing idiots are idiots to the public like no other year.

There's also a bit of reality that hampers the fourth argument: Irritatingly, the Log Cabin Republicans were suing the government over DADT. They were trying to overturn the legislation before the repeal. They also did it during the repeal and after the repeal, as they won the case months after the President signed the repeal into law. There's no reason why ENDA cannot be passed if the EO is being reviewed by Congress.

And let us not forget that SCOTUS can review legislation at any time. Providing someone makes a (relevant) argument.

Whether or not I like the President (I do) or whether or not I voted for him and will do in the future (I did and will) is irrelevant to the issue at hand. He should have issued the EO and relieved a pressure on a discriminated group and provided one more piece of evidence that ENDA would not destroy the economy or the country.