text of the ruling online yet?Been looking. Meantime, this brief bit from Balkin’s website.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/201…

Ahead of the vote, President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps cautioned against repeal. “My primary concern with proposed repeal is the potential disruption to cohesion that may be caused by significant change during a period of extended combat operations,” Gen. James Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Question: What’s wrong with this picture?
Answer: There is no military branch of government.
– Balkinization post

addendumOne ongoing web page for Witt v. U.S. is at the ACLU-Washington website.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/w…

Two comments:Oh yeah!
and…duh, in response to judge saying “her reinstatement would do nothing to hurt unit morale.”

indeedAlthough that judge’s statement, in a written ruling, is not just a nice comment. It has a certain force of law, esp. if construed for any reinstatement not proven otherwise. ODOJ is going to have to prove, not simply say, that Servicemember X’s reinstatement is going to hurt anyone’s feelings.
It’ll be interesting to see if the 9th Circuit, which now has Witt and Log Cabin Republicans under its jurisdiction, will consolidate the two cases. Esp. in light of their interlocutory ruling (i.e., the Witt standard).
OWH also has a decision to make as to whether to voluntarily stay any administrative-separation proceedings under DADT (ha) or how/whether to appeal this at the 9th.
This we’ll defend.

WH moraleI bet it hurts morale within the WH.

How much time…How much time before Obama’s people try to kick her out again?  They love to appeal.

memorandum and opinion now onlineat the ACLU website above. Getcher ACLU membership cards there while you’re at it.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/w…
Civitas romanus sum.

How long till the ODOJ appeal?It’ll come, as sure as God made little apples.

Those gosh darn activists judgesLooks like Ronald Reagan and the Bushes managed to appoint nothing but homosexualists, activists, gay-agenda loving judges to help you darned gays just take over this country. In no time at all I’ll be forced to divorce the wife and marry a man.
I can’t wait.

well, they might remember that the clock is runningI’m curious if reinstatement also means that (1) Maj. Witt’s time-in-grade runs through this period, (2) that she be awarded accrued salary, and (3) that her retirement benefits fully credit this period and (4) that she’s now elegible for the promotion to Lt. Col. or Col. that she would have gotten in the normal run of time. See, she’s been facing DADT discharge since 2004, so the longer ODOJ puts her off, the more expensive she gets.
And, besides, the Republic would benefit from her service while she’s still short of retirement.
Fiat justitia.

Makes you wonderMakes you wonder why we’re so afraid of Republicans in charge of picking the judiciary.

fun readingSome nice bits from the Memorandum of the ruling, available at

Serving within that unit are known or suspected
gay or lesbian service men and women. There is no evidence before this Court to suggest that their service within the unit causes problems of the type predicted in the Congressional findings of fact referenced above. These people train together, fly together, care for patients together, deploy together. There is nothing in the record before this Court suggesting that the sexual orientation (acknowledged or suspected) has negatively impacted the performance, dedication or enthusiasm of the 446th AES. There is no evidence that wounded troops care about the sexual orientation of the flight nurse or medical
technician tending to their wounds.

* * *

The government also asks the Court to include within its analysis the added factor that, for a
relatively brief period of time during their relationship, Major Witt’s partner was a married woman.
Adultery is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which can subject the offending officer to
discipline. In this case, however, no charges were filed against Major Witt because she was headed for
administrative discharge under DADT. (Dkt. 119-5 at pp. 28-29). Major Witt was discharged pursuant to
DADT and not because she had committed adultery. She was given an Honorable Discharge without
qualification or any reference whatsoever to adultery. Under the circumstances presented here, the Court
will not speculate on what the Air Force would have done to punish Major Witt, if anything, had she been
charged with adultery and the Court will certainly not accept an uncharged offense or allegation as a basis
for sustaining an otherwise unconstitutional discharge.

All this is significant procedurally as well as substantively. The Court is saying that if the Goverment is not going to prove its points and arguments, but simply make the same because-i-said-so assertions, they won’t be acceptable any more in LGBT/military cases, just as they won’t in normal civil procedure.
The order itself, however, simply requires the Air Force to reinstate Maj. Witt. It doesn’t seem to order DADT discontinued for everybody, even in the Federal District (which includes Ft. Lewis and McChord AFB) — but it puts a big hole in it. If the ODOJ appeals it to the 9th Circuit, well and good — the 9th may rule what this judge mentioned, that what applies to Maj. Witt, in a uniform service, applies for all: so ordered.

Hey!“ODOJ is going to have to prove, not simply say, that Servicemember X’s reinstatement is going to hurt anyone’s feelings.”
That’s what ridiculously expensive and flawed surveys are for!

Is the fearprimarily regarding recent republican appointees only?

tell it to the 9th, ODOJSurveys are all very well, but presenting them as evidence, in a court of law, is a whole ‘nother process. This blog has noted just how transparently stupid, how heroically obtuse, the DOD surveys were. ODOJ will probably piss off any 9th Circuit judge with an IQ above room temperature if they peddle it in their briefs.
And there’s this from the decision today:

The evidence clearly supports the plaintiff’s assertion that the reinstatement of Major Witt would not adversely affect the morale or unit cohesion of the 446th AES. The only evidence to the contrary comes in the form of survey responses and preference polls. These surveys and polls are some evidence that there may be persons in the 446th AES who would prefer that gays and lesbians not serve openly within their unit but such preferences are not outcome determinative here. The men and women of the
United States military have over the years demonstrated the ability to accept diverse peoples into their
ranks and to treat them with the respect necessary to accomplish the mission, whatever that mission might
be. That ability has persistently allowed the armed forces of the United States to be the most professional,
dedicated and effective military in the world. The reinstatement of Major Margaret Witt will not erode
the proficiency of the United States military.

Cross-examine that, ODOJ!

Card carrying for years now.

And Obama admin pees on our parade in 3, 2, 1…

Case documentsI’ve just read the briefs/testimony at the bottom of that site (declaration of…). Very interesting.
It looks like her squadron is a model for the post-DADT military. About 10% of the squadron were and are gay or lesbian and it was widely known or suspected. There were two or three couples in the squadron. People frequently brought their partners to unit functions or invited people to their homes. No one ever cared.

Re:You can find the details about the gays and lesbians serving in the unit here:
http://www.aclu-wa.org/cases/w…
The whole “declaration” stuff. About 10% of the unit was gay or lesbian. And that over a 20 year period. There were even some couples in the squadron.
It seems Witt was only discharged because a higher command also received the information and ordered her immediate commander to fire her. Otherwise her CO might have ignored it.

No one cared….except the neighbor….
Please someone correct me if I’m wrong about this.  I remember reading about this case over the past 5 years and recalling that it was Witt’s civilian neighbor who called the military and reported Witt living with her gf.  
That’s right.  Don’t ask, don’t tell, let the town crier do it.  Sheeze.  

Not exactlyWitt was in a relationship with a married woman whose husband outed her per email to her unit commander and to someone way, way up in the chain of command. That’s how how it went outside of the ability of the squadron alone to deal with.
However, that women was already seeking a divorce. One report I read said she lived separated from her husband. Not sure about the exact details there. Witt and her are still together.

well, yesThe estranged husband. That was the reason the “adultery” allegation came up (but not charged) during Maj. Witt’s proceedings. This is the “Don’t Ask” part of third-party allegations that Sen. McCain didn’t get, this week. An estranged spouse or ex-spouse (and BTW, if you folks won’t respect our marriages why should we respect yours?), or an ex-boy/girlfriend, or a jilted harasser, and a complaint, and DADT proceedings start.
The town crier, indeed.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tattle.