DADT: Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

[Scimitar]

Frankly, the only way this will get done is through the courts, Judges are not scared of being fired, politicians are.

 

[hotatlboi]

They can't use reconciliation for the healthcare bill or climate change bill using reconciliation, because the legislation is too far reaching for it to be used. Dick Durbin came out today and said that the only way a healthcare bill could be passed using reconciliation is if ALL of the elements related to insurance reform were stripped from it.

Yes, I should have clarified they can only use it for the budget related elements of those bills.

 

[Kulindahr]

51 is a majority. That majority means you set the legislative agenda, you get majorities and chairmanships on all the committees, you get to make the rules for how stuff is voted on and brought to consideration, etc.

The 60 vote threshold is a larger majority needed to break a filibuster, it's true they no longer have that, but they still have a majority.

It represents a voting majority on any bill that there is not a filibuster on, and on any bill that they can choose to consider another way, such as with reconciliation.

It is true that all the major bills (health care, climate change, financial regulations, et al) probably will be filibustered. However they can either draft a bipartisan bill that attracts at least one Republican, or they can use reconciliation.

A ploy that they might manage to get a critical vote here or there would be to offer chairmanship of some subcommittee to a Republican. On a big issue, that could be worth it -- for example, if they actually came up with a health care bill that was really reform.

 

[Kulindahr]

They can't use reconciliation for the healthcare bill or climate change bill using reconciliation, because the legislation is too far reaching for it to be used. Dick Durbin came out today and said that the only way a healthcare bill could be passed using reconciliation is if ALL of the elements related to insurance reform were stripped from it.

That's a problem right there: they should never draft legislation that is so complex it can't be dealt with in reconciliation.

For that matter, they should never draft legislation so complex that a majority of the American people can't understand it.


Of course, that would require barring lawyers from serving in Congress -- but that would be an improvement all by itself!

 

[Centexfarmer]

The Democratic party had 68 votes in the Senate in the 60s, the 89th Congress from 1965-1967.

The Democrats held a filibuster proof majority throughout the 60s.

It would be much easier to pass gay rights legislation if we had that now.

You're talking about something that the Democratic Party had over 40 years ago when the Democratic Party HAD leadership.

The present day Democratic Party could fuck up a wet dream without even trying.

Would you like for me to cite examples?

 

[NickCole]

The Democratic party had 68 votes in the Senate in the 60s, the 89th Congress from 1965-1967.

The Democrats held a filibuster proof majority throughout the 60s.

It would be much easier to pass gay rights legislation if we had that now.

We had that all last year.

And month after month Obama did nothing to fulfill the promises he made to us during the campaign.

Now, as I predicted, that opportunity is lost.

 

[iman]

The Democratic party had 68 votes in the Senate in the 60s, the 89th Congress from 1965-1967.

The Democrats held a filibuster proof majority throughout the 60s.

It would be much easier to pass gay rights legislation if we had that now.

Nobody had 68 votes in the Senate in the 60's. Many of the Democratic votes were Dixiecrat and the Dems depended on liberal Republicans to pass controversial legislation. Today there are no liberal Republicans and the Dems are forced to placate Dems from conservative states to pass anything.

It is disingenuous for some posters to pretend that the Dems had 60 votes to do much of anything before this loss of a seat.

 

[construct]

Unless I'm mistaken, we still have the votes for cloture on ENDA. In other words, there are the votes in place in the Senate to do some relatively simple things that are part of the Democratic platform--even though they are opposed to the Republican platform. It would help to shore up the base, e.g. the gay community, without alienating the majority of voters. The expenditure of political capital on something like that is not going to break the bank.

So, let's get started.

 

[hotatlboi]

Unless I'm mistaken, we still have the votes for cloture on ENDA.

It is not a sure thing that there are 60 votes for ENDA.

However, the math does look favorable at this point.

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/08/s_1584_the_senate_version_of_enda_-_whats_the_math.php

 

[JB3]

Good link hotatlboi!

Thanks!

Murkowski, Ensign, Voinovich, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, are the only moderate Republicans I can think of who will probably vote for it.

It does indeed look favorable. It just depends on whether some of the moderate dems up for re-election grow a spine and vote for what's right instead of what will get them re-elected. (same goes for moderate republicans, mind you)

 

[Kulindahr]

The military was not desegregated overnight.

True. During the Korean Conflict, a number of officers were sacked for treating blacks differently -- like always sending them in first as cannon fodder. By Vietnam, it wasn't so bad, but vets I know say there were still problems. These days, all the military people I know say racist troubles are rare, and more likely to be with Asian-Americans that blacks.

I guess the newcomers always get picked on.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now that's the truth.

I love the avatar.

Waiting for Congresscritters to abandon D.C.'s one true party, the "Re-Elect Us" party, would be like watching mountains erode.

 

[Kulindahr]

DADT hearings moved to early February by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).



Read More

The decision to announce a date is likely due to the president's SOU speech which will mention DADT.



Obama to make announcement on gay ban

Now the Prop 8 people will use this to say we have political power.....

 

[grantt]

Just heard on the news that Obama is going to ask Congress to repeal DADT tonight in the State of the Union address. We'll see.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just heard on the news that Obama is going to ask Congress to repeal DADT tonight in the State of the Union address. We'll see.

He might even get it. After all, the banks and corporations who own him and Congress probably don't care, so long as there's cannon fodder for adventures like Iraq.

 

[JB3]

He addressed it....the military personnel did not look pleased. I had a hearty good laugh.

That's how they always look, haha.

They all knew what he was going to say about it, but they're very clear about not showing open support for politicians.

 

[JB3]

I know. So rigid. I love it. ^

I love how dumb-ed down the Republican response is currently streaming on NYTimes.

I actually think its quite good. Its better than it has been in the past.

 

[glo-unit]

He might even get it. After all, the banks and corporations who own him and Congress probably don't care, so long as there's cannon fodder for adventures like Iraq.

Damn, and I thought I was cynical.

 

[JB3]

He said it, now he must do it. If DADT is not repealed by this time next year, I will never support Obama.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Republican response was ok, but yes it did sound dumbed down.