Adam Serwer complains today of the administration’s approach to LGBT issues,
In 1955, the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation to commence with “all deliberate speed.” Lately, it seems like the Obama administration has been moving in slow motion.
But that’s kind of what “all deliberate speed” means. Warren had originally written “at the earliest practicable date”. But Frankfurter urged him, successfully, to change it.
‘with all deliberate speed’ conveys more effectively the process of time for the effectuation of our decision…. I think it is highly desirable to educate public opinion—the parties themselves and the general public—to an understanding that we are at the beginning of a process of enforcement and not concluding it…. as … the phrase ‘with all deliberate speed’ … [is] calculated to do.
So, disappointing though the administration’s policies may be, they’re actually quite consonant with the Court’s directive to move forward with “all deliberate speed.”
The Edge of the American West 
14 comments
June 30, 2009 at 10:19 am
ben
“effectuation”?!
June 30, 2009 at 10:20 am
eric
Take it up with the Justice, ben.
June 30, 2009 at 10:44 am
JPool
Such phrasing was rather famously important in Ghana’s political history. In the first elections for a popularly elected Legislative Assembly, in 1951, the United Gold Coast Convention, the more conservative party, headed mostly by lawyers, ran under the slogan, “Self-Government in the Shortest Possible Time.” It was, of course, massively defeated by the populist Convention People’s Party, who offered the far zingier slogan, “Self-Government, Now!” Really, political mobilization was what carried the day, but poor sloganeering, and failure to translate from lawyerese, doesn’t gain you any points.
June 30, 2009 at 11:09 am
grackle
effectuation The act of beginning and carrying through to completion: discharge, execution, performance, prosecution. (answers.com)
Wordnik cites William James in 1909 and earlier citations from the 1880’s. Seems like Frankfurter knew whereof he spoke.
June 30, 2009 at 12:23 pm
bitchphd
Here is my question about Obama’s approach on DADT. Taking him at his word, he wants to repeal it by having Congress pass a law. Everyone and their gay dog, however, wants him to repeal it through executive order, b/c that’ll be faster.
What, if any, are the reasons for Obama’s approach? Is an act of congress more difficult to repeal? Is it just that he’s all about the process or achieving consensus or something, come hell and high water, and wants both parties to have a chance to hash things out? Or what?
Also, did anyone besides me think that during his speech a couple days ago Michelle looked kind of irritated?
June 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm
karen marie
Polls over time have shown the number of people favoring repeal has gotten larger. People who oppose the repeal are increasingly seen as wrong and out of touch.
Rather than changing the law on the front edge of the wave of public opinion, Obama is letting the incoming tide carry the change to shore where its legitimacy cannot be challenged.
Given the level of public outcry in favor of repeal, I don’t see it being much longer.
June 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm
erubin
I think (or rather, hope) Obama is setting aside issues like gay marriage and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for his presumed second term. The last thing he needs is to provide a Republican opponent with a wedge issue that will appeal to peoples’ prejudices and fears. So far, Obama has done a phenomenal job of steering clear of controversies that might divide the electorate. The “worst” he’s done in that respect is to pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which critics argue would bring terrorists into America. I doubt that’s enough to derail a second campaign.
June 30, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Gabriel
I think (or rather, hope) Obama is setting aside issues like gay marriage and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for his presumed second term.
I hope not, because that would make him a fool.
Presidential reelection campaigns aren’t won and lost on wedge issues, they’re won on the economy, wars, and the economy. If the economy has improved by 2012, Obama will win reelection in a landslide. If it hasn’t, he’ll lose. There’s not much the president can do alone on gay marriage, but a repeal of DADT wouldn’t even be an afterthought in that election.
June 30, 2009 at 4:22 pm
bitchphd
I am really sorry to say that I have come around to believing that Obama really does not support gay marriage. Which is really crappy of him.
June 30, 2009 at 4:30 pm
silbey
What, if any, are the reasons for Obama’s approach
I think the Clinton 1993 example looms large in Obama’s thinking. Rightly or wrongly, he’s worried about torpedoing his Presidency on the issue.
June 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Ken
Addressing DADT and Obama; first of all, Obama can’t repeal DADT with an executive order. It is a law and only Congress can repeal a law. HOWEVER, the law gives the President nearly complete control over how and when the law is implemented and applied. So, what Obama *could do* at any time is say that he is changing the rules for DADT and how it applies and then gut it completely so that it has no applicability. I heard someone say yesterday in all the hoopla over the Pride cocktail party that Obama doesn’t want to do that because it *might* relieve the pressure for Congress to repeal it.
I suppose that is a reasonable argument but find it a total cop-out at the same time.
June 30, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Ahistoricality
So, what Obama *could do* at any time is say that he is changing the rules for DADT and how it applies and then gut it completely so that it has no applicability.
That, however, leaves open the possibility that a future President could ungut DADT, whereas legislation would create all kinds of neat precedents and would be very hard to renege on in the future without massive cultural and legal damage.
July 1, 2009 at 8:08 am
Barry
I also strongly prefer legislation.
However, until then:
“It is a law and only Congress can repeal a law. HOWEVER, the law gives the President nearly complete control over how and when the law is implemented and applied. So, what Obama *could do* at any time is say that he is changing the rules for DADT and how it applies and then gut it completely so that it has no applicability.”
Gut it with executive orders, which base their legitimacy on the War against Terror. See how the right likes that.
July 1, 2009 at 11:37 am
rea
Gut it with executive orders, which base their legitimacy on the War against Terror. See how the right likes that.
Well, but that’s the whole problem right there. If Bush didn’t have the power as Commander-in-chief to gut the laws banning torture with executive orders, how can Obama gut the DADT statute? The scope of presidential power does not depend on whether we like what the president is doing.