DADT vote happening now

Jess · 09-21-2010, 02:13 PM

At this point, no, it is not good for us. What happened today ( and i missed some of it while picking up the boy from school but will go back and watch it later), is that the Senate voted no to hearing debates for amendments.

Senators from both parties are now giving statements regarding the more controversial amendments ( repeal of DADT and the DREAM ACT) and expressing their opinions as to why they feel that debate was not even up for debate ( LOL). Gotta love politics.

Jess · 09-21-2010, 02:53 PM

I'll be very interested in seeing where this case leads. I am quite sure the feds are fearing the day that it ( DADT) IS deemed unconstitutional and all of the discharged vets sue the US Gov.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...rent-doj-tack/

Jess · 09-21-2010, 03:12 PM

So.. maybe someone with more knowledge of how the process works can help me out with this... Sen Reid who has been the fore front champion of repealing DADT voted NO today to opening the amendments up to debate. He went right along with the entire Republican Senators and voted "NAY".

What gives?

Here is how they voted:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...ote=00238#name

Corkey · 09-21-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess

So.. maybe someone with more knowledge of how the process works can help me out with this... Sen Reid who has been the fore front champion of repealing DADT voted NO today to opening the amendments up to debate. He went right along with the entire Republican Senators and voted "NAY".

What gives?

Here is how they voted:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...ote=00238#name

He did it as a procedural vote so he could bring up the bill at a later date. However I'm thinking that after the midterms it will be too late for it to matter to anyone but his constituents.

Jess · 09-21-2010, 03:35 PM

Thanks Corkey, I appreciate that. I'm still kind of confused though, because to what little I do understand, I thought as Majority Leader he could bring up the cloture motion at "any given point." At least according to an article from KEEN, which makes note that the D from AR voted NO ( the only other Dem to do so) and yet seemed to just pass over Reid's NAY vote.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...-repeal-today/

Guess I'll just have to keep reading.. or reiding.. as it were.. LOL

Corkey · 09-21-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jess

Thanks Corkey, I appreciate that. I'm still kind of confused though, because to what little I do understand, I thought as Majority Leader he could bring up the cloture motion at "any given point." At least according to an article from KEEN, which makes note that the D from AR voted NO ( the only other Dem to do so) and yet seemed to just pass over Reid's NAY vote.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...-repeal-today/

Guess I'll just have to keep reading.. or reiding.. as it were.. LOL

As he is the Majority leader he had to do this as he saw that it was going down. He can now bring it up again. DADT was voted upon, it did not reach 60 or super majority votes in favor. Round 1. If the House brings it up for vote, Reid can bring it up again. Round 2. ETA: The vote today was to debate the bill, not an up or down vote on the bill itself.

Jess · 09-21-2010, 04:06 PM

Right, I knew it was about the ability to even debate the amendments. What I wasn't fully aware of though, is that the language regarding DADT is not even a repeal. It is worded to allow the process for repeal, but is not the actual repeal itself.

From the KEEN article I linked above:

'Reid noted during Senate morning business Tuesday that the DADT amendment had been generating “all the attention” for the defense bill vote. He emphasized that the DADT law “is not repealed” by the language in the bill. Instead, he noted, the language provides for a process by which the law can be repealed. That process requires that the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all “certify” in writing that they have read the Pentagon report on how best to implement repeal and have considered whatever recommendations are made in the report. They must further certify that the necessary regulations to accompany repeal have been developed and that repeal is “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”

So, I'm not getting the sense of "urgency" if the language clearly states that it is only AFTER reviewing the Pentagon findings that the Pres, et al have to "certify" their considerations of those findings.

It all just feels way too dog/ pony show to me.

09-21-2010, 02:53 PM	#2
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	Another DADT trial, but a different DOJ tack I'll be very interested in seeing where this case leads. I am quite sure the feds are fearing the day that it ( DADT) IS deemed unconstitutional and all of the discharged vets sue the US Gov. http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...rent-doj-tack/

09-21-2010, 02:13 PM	#1
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	At this point, no, it is not good for us. What happened today ( and i missed some of it while picking up the boy from school but will go back and watch it later), is that the Senate voted no to hearing debates for amendments. Senators from both parties are now giving statements regarding the more controversial amendments ( repeal of DADT and the DREAM ACT) and expressing their opinions as to why they feel that debate was not even up for debate ( LOL). Gotta love politics.

09-21-2010, 03:12 PM	#3
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	So.. maybe someone with more knowledge of how the process works can help me out with this... Sen Reid who has been the fore front champion of repealing DADT voted NO today to opening the amendments up to debate. He went right along with the entire Republican Senators and voted "NAY". What gives? Here is how they voted: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...ote=00238#name

09-21-2010, 03:35 PM	#5
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	Thanks Corkey, I appreciate that. I'm still kind of confused though, because to what little I do understand, I thought as Majority Leader he could bring up the cloture motion at "any given point." At least according to an article from KEEN, which makes note that the D from AR voted NO ( the only other Dem to do so) and yet seemed to just pass over Reid's NAY vote. http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...-repeal-today/ Guess I'll just have to keep reading.. or reiding.. as it were.. LOL

09-21-2010, 04:06 PM	#7
Jess Timed Out - Permanent How Do You Identify?: decidedly indifferent Preferred Pronoun?: other Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Patrick Springs, VA Posts: 2,812 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,247 Thanked 5,700 Times in 1,682 Posts Rep Power: 0	Right, I knew it was about the ability to even debate the amendments. What I wasn't fully aware of though, is that the language regarding DADT is not even a repeal. It is worded to allow the process for repeal, but is not the actual repeal itself. From the KEEN article I linked above: 'Reid noted during Senate morning business Tuesday that the DADT amendment had been generating “all the attention” for the defense bill vote. He emphasized that the DADT law “is not repealed” by the language in the bill. Instead, he noted, the language provides for a process by which the law can be repealed. That process requires that the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all “certify” in writing that they have read the Pentagon report on how best to implement repeal and have considered whatever recommendations are made in the report. They must further certify that the necessary regulations to accompany repeal have been developed and that repeal is “consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.” So, I'm not getting the sense of "urgency" if the language clearly states that it is only AFTER reviewing the Pentagon findings that the Pres, et al have to "certify" their considerations of those findings. It all just feels way too dog/ pony show to me.