[Thud]

Lawyers are trained to take either side on a moment's notice because, among other things, we can end up on the bench in a week. One of the senior prosecutors for Los Angeles gave monthly lectures to police officers on how to word search warrant applications to get by insufficiently suspicious judges. Only he got a quickie appointment as a judge and was immediately assigned by the presiding judge to review search warrants prepared by the very officers who attended his lectures.

My city's "City Engineer" complained to me once that I was causing the city too much trouble on behalf of my developer clients. I floored him by saying the city's problem was not hiring me first. When he stopped gasping, he said he had not expected such a mercenary reply.

My point is that lawyers have to be objective in legal analysis. We must often say the most amazing things with a straight face to win, but we have to weigh the chances of winning with a given argument as honestly as we can.

IMO it will be very, very, difficult to keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" alive. It was shaky before Lawrence v. Texas but the odds then were a bit better than 50/50, and that's how the Supremes ruled.

After Lawrence, I put the chances of it going down at four or five to one.

[King Black Robe]

You can keep hoping anyway.

[phelanw]

There have been numerous threads pointing out to you that the Lawrence decision does not necessarily apply to the military, just as many other civilian rights do not guarantee military acceptance. Get off your soap box and read the thread.

[FormerLib]

...I put the chances of it going down at four or five to one.

Interesting choice of words, LOL! Perhaps you're counting on your own odds being the same? I think you've tipped your hand...

...or your wrist, at the very least!