Waiting for a more ideal time to decide this question is obviously one option; however, difficult tasks are rarely well served by delay. It is hard to foresee a time when the men and women of the U.S. military will be more focused and disciplined than they are today. We must be prudent in our approach, but there is little to suggest that the issues associated with a change in the law and [Department of Defense] policy will diminish if we wait on the uncertain promise of a less challenging future.

The SASC hearing was the second in as many days to review a Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] report [text, PDF; JURIST report], released earlier this week, that concluded that repealing DADT would only minimally effect military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. The DOD also released a Support Plan for Implementation [text, PDF], laying out the Comprehensive Review Working Group's recommendations to proceed with the repeal in a form similar to a military operations order. Last week, US Air Force Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged under DADT, became the first openly gay person to serve in the US military after the Obama administration did not pursue a stay of a previous federal court decision ordering her reinstatement [JURIST reports]. In November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on the 112th Congress to repeal DADT [JURIST report]. Gates issued a memorandum in October limiting the authority to discharge openly gay service members [JURIST report] to five senior DOD officials. In September, the US Senate [official website] rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.

Justice Antonin Scalia [Oyez profile] stayed the Louisiana court ruling [JURIST report] in September in his role as Circuit Justice for the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The stay prevented the companies from having to carry out the decision. Scalia indicated that it was likely the Supreme Court would grant certiorari, there was a "significant possibility" of reversal, there was a likelihood of irreparable harm without the stay and the ruling raised due process concerns. Philip Morris has faced other class action litigation related to its sales practices. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned class action certification [JURIST report] for a lawsuit brought by "light" cigarette smokers against Philip Morris and other light cigarette makers. The class action, which included anyone who has ever bought light cigarettes since they hit the market in the 1970s, had alleged that tobacco companies used deceptive advertising tactics to mislead smokers in response to growing health concerns over the risks of smoking cigarettes. In September 2006, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York certified the class of 50 million plaintiffs [JURIST report] for the class-action suit. Lawyers estimated that sales of light cigarettes brought tobacco companies between $120 billion and $200 billion in extra sales since 1971.