Over the weekend, Robert Gibbs discussed DADT on Meet The Press:

"[W]e have a process in place right now to work with the Pentagon for an orderly and disciplined transition from the law that we have now to an era that 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't exist. And I will say this . . . 'don't ask, don't tell' will end under this president." 

Jason Mazzone exposes the hollow core of this position:

The problem with the Administration's position is that it is based on a false notion that a judicial remedy is inconsistent with orderly change.

Courts have broad discretion when they craft remedies to cure constitutional violations. And when remedying a constitutional violation requires overhauling the organization or longstanding practices of a government entity, courts always aim for an orderly transition if possible. There are many examples. Most obviously, segregated schools were not desegregated overnight but pursuant to a multi-step process overseen by the courts over an extended period of time.

If the Administration's concern is with an orderly transition, it should have given Judge Phillips a proposal to end enforcement of DADT on a schedule and in a manner that would minimize disruptions.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.