Don't Ask; Don't Tell Repeal Blocked

[synkr0nized]

Originally Posted by Archbio

They do still use fillibusters in the US Senate, apparently. Turns out it's even more of a let down. A description of how the modern fillibuster goes down:

No, see, that's not at all what I described. I want none of this "oh man they called, 'fillibuster', time to toss this out."

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Because we're taking them as a reliable source of information? Really?

The Democrats used the filibuster to nothing resembling the extent which the Republicans have done and basically caved repeatedly on pretty much every issue except I think like, fucking over social security, and a couple of the more-crazy judges, so if by reciprocity you mean... not actually reciprocity at all, and in actuality the Republicans throwing a hugeass babyfit over limited use of something which they then, when the Democrats gained a majority, used nonstop for the next two years. So more like, hypocrisy.

Of course, why didn't I see it? The Republicans are evil because the Democrats chose not to take full advantage of a recognized tactic freely avalable to them! How could I have been so blind?

And it should have been quite clear I was referring to reciprocity on the Democrats part. Not sure how you missed that. Also, if the Repulican politicians had not allowed the Democrats to use it, then tried to use it themselves, that would be hypocritical. But since they did allow the Delocrats to use it, and now use it themselves, that is not hypocritical.

The commentators? Yeah, hypocritical.

[Archbio]

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe you just don't read what you quote [...] No, see, that's not at all what I described. I want none of this "oh man they called, 'fillibuster', time to toss this out."

It's a real pleasure to see you up and about.

But really, it doesn't matter what you want. And I don't mean that it doesn't matter to me*, but rather that it doesn't matter to how the US Senate defines a fillibuster. And that's what my point was concerned by, while still relating to what you said. You described (and agreed with POS implying the same) what they were doing as threatening to use the fillibuster (which is enough to get the other side to back off,) and I quote a source that states that they aren't threatening to use an option called fillibuster, they are using an option called fillibuster, and that the process that you describe and that you long for isn't required of anyone ever under the current rules. I thought that was a substantial thing to note.

I've read what I quoted. I quoted POS saying this:

Secondly, I want democrats to quit being weenies about this filibuster bullshit and let the republicans actually try it. I really don't think those old farts have the stamina to stand up there and yammer long enough to keep the vote from happening, and even if they do they're just going to end up saying enough retarded shit to make themselves look bad anyway.

Let them filibuster and let them fail, I say.

And I've quoted you quoting this same thing and stating your agreement with it.**

What the democrats have to do to force these "old farts" to all go Jimmy Stewart isn't "letting them fillibuster." They first have to go back and make fillibustering a process that somebody can actually fail again. You were both speaking of the issue in a way that seemed harmlessly misinformed, and I sought to clarify (altough I personally have good reason for not being reliably informed myself.) If you didn't mean to overlook the existence of the modern version of the fillibuster (Fillibuster In Name Only,) then yes I'd say that you weren't clear.

In summary: what's now called a fillibuster isn't a fillibuster in the way you describe it, it's not a fillibuster in any meaningful way. The old fillibuster isn't on the menu. The democrats can't "let" the republicans use that fillibuster until they bring it back. What "fillibuster" currently means in the reality of the US Senate is something (even if they actually go through with it instead of just threatening) that the average old fart can easily accomplish and makes for lousy news headlines. We're all agreed this sucks, and we're all agreed on what a fillibuster should be.

*While it also doesn't matter to me what you want, it's not something that's relevant to the topic.

**Evidently that was a mistake on my part.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You guys should bring back old-school filibustering simply cause its funny as shit

[Archbio]

Originally Posted by I Did Not Read This

You guys should bring back old-school filibustering simply cause its funny as shit

James Stewart: comedy genius!

[Kim]

Is there an explanation for this that *isn't* Obama's a douchebag?

[01d55]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Is there an explanation for this that *isn't* Obama's a douchebag?

It's a pretty open confession that the Democratic Party is a dive artist's club.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...-ask-dont-tell
Relevant.

The name Margaret Witt may join the canon of US civil rights' pioneers, after a federal judge ruled that the decorated flight nurse – discharged from the US air force for being a lesbian under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy – should be given her job back as soon as possible.

In his ruling [pdf], US district judge Ronald Leighton concluded: "The application of 'don't ask, don't tell' to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further the government's interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion."

Leighton also ruled that Witt's rights under the US constitution's fifth amendment had been violated, and that she should be restored to her position "as soon as is practicable".

The Spokesman-Review reported that after announcing his ruling in the court in Tacoma, Leighton looked at Witt and said: "I hope you will request reinstatement." Witt later replied that she would "absolutely" seek to rejoin. That would make her the first person to do so since the policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the US military was imposed in 1993.

The judge's ruling is the latest body blow to DADT, coming only two weeks after a federal judge in California declared that DADT was unconstitutional, saying the ban violated the first and fifth amendment rights of homosexuals and harmed the effectiveness of the armed forces.

Witt joined the air force in 1987, was promoted to major in 1999 and later worked as a flight nurse with the 446th reserve air evacuation squadron, responsible for transporting injured and wounded soldiers in flying intensive care units.

But in 2003 Witt began a relationship with a married woman, whose husband later outed her to the air force. That sparked a military inquiry and after a hearing in 2006 Witt was discharged from the air force.

Witt's first attempt to challenge her discharge through the courts was knocked back in 2006, by Leighton. But in 2008 her case was allowed to go forward after a federal appeals court panel ruled that the military can't discharge service members for being homosexual unless it could prove that it furthered military goals.

The case was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, with Witt's lawyers arguing that her sexuality never caused problems in the unit, and that her firing actually hurt military goals such as morale, unit cohesion and troop readiness. Several members of her old unit told the judge that they would welcome Witt back.

Judge Leighton noted that during her service in the military, Witt received the meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Aerial Achievement Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, and numerous other awards and commendations, along with high performance reviews.

In a statement from the bench, Leighton said to Witt:

You have been and continue to be a central figure in a long-term, highly charged civil-rights movement. That role places extraordinary stresses on you, I know. Today, you have won a victory in that struggle, the depth and duration of which will be determined by other judicial officers and, hopefully soon, the political branches of government.

I don't know how much of a precedent this sets or anything but it's something.

[Funka Genocide]

I just need to stop reading replies to news articles. I swear I'm just going to flip out and punch a nun or some shit if I keep doing this.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Are you referring to the link I posted? I don't see anything too bad in there.. not by internet standards anyway