Jester Messiah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:10 AM
Original message |
A question regarding the fate of DADT |
|
What would be the consequences of Obama issuing an executive order mandating that DADT is not to be enforced? Can he legally do this?
If he can, is now not the right time to do so? If not, why not? It seems to me that doing so would moot the senate and give some senators the political cover they would need to break the filibuster.
|
Heidi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:12 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't want Dem senators to have political cover on human rights issues. |
|
They need to do the right thing. Period.
|
Jester Messiah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I was thinking more of the squishier -R senators |
|
Like the ladies from Maine, for example.
|
Heidi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. My expectations of those with an R by their names are lower, |
|
but I don't want them to have political cover for doing the wrong thing, either.
|
AldebTX
(739 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
detail just why they are against rescinding DADT
|
Jester Messiah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-22-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
(Many of) their constituents expect them to be bigoted and discriminatory. Not doing so opens them to being primaried by Tea Party buffoons, as has already happened in many cases.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 02:14 AM
Response to Original message |