6/25 — Texas Filibuster, Prop 8 and DOMA unconstitutional

[stripeypants]

This details what is in a rape kit and what it's used for: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sexual-assault-recovery/rape-kit
_________________
::lesser crisis mode::

[Mr Gary]

Thank you, Stripey. It was a serious question couched in questionable posts.

I'm still none the wiser about the 'democratic' origin of filibusters.

But then, stripey as your trousers may be, I can't expect you to be the oracle of Delphi.

TO THE WIKIPEDIAS, AHOY!!

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[Mr Gary]

Thanks WoC.

That graph means nothing to me, because I'm tired, and the red/blue colour scheme gives it political tones that would mean nothing to a Youessien perhaps, but mainly because it does nothing to describe why yakking so long you prevent other elected representatives voting on an issue is allowed.

[Snorri]

[stripeypants]

Here in Washington bestiality was legal, until a guy died having sex with a horse. People were outraged, though they didn't seem to be outraged on the horse's behalf, so much as they saw someone doing something stupid and dying for it. In that case, I think it's more like when people want drugs or other things banished so that people won't be harmed by them - even if they want to be.

I think a lot of people just object to it on the grounds it is sinful or just wrong or something like that. They don't necessarily need to be physically harming anything. Also, most people seem to think of men having sex with female animals, and don't think about the other way around

Mr. Gary, you can't be expected to know what a rape kit is; our elected officials don't even know.
I once upon a time did know the origin of the filibuster, but alas, I don't know anymore. I recall it was something outside the rule book that was invented during one session of congress, and then was kept forever more. I was really hopefully Harry Reid would keep his promise to get rid of it - then he didn't and I was super pissed.

I'd like to see them changed, if not gotten rid of, so that there are only a limited number of filibusters to be had in any given period (maybe two or three per year.) That way people would use them for things they really think are important, not just to stall every day business.
_________________
::lesser crisis mode::

[mouse]

that was my sense, stripey - that people objected to bestiality not because of any particular feeling for the animal but rather revulsion for the sin. so if you remove the sin objection, is there still a reason zoophiles would not be entitled to becoming a protected class?

and also, yes, we need to go back to filibusters the way the lady in texas did them, where you just have to stand there talking and talking and talking, just to demonstrate how strongly you really feel about the matter. one wonders, if it came right down to it, how many republican senators really hate obama enough to stand there talking all day. right now, it's so easy to obstruct action - you just threaten to maybe do something (which in turn just involves saying your are doing it) that it takes no effort to toss wrenches into everything. if you had to physically haul that wretch into the machine room and use some actual muscle to get it into the machine, people might decide it's not _that_ awful if they let it just keep running.

although i do think the texas insistence that the filibusterer has to keep on the subject of the bill at hand is a bit extreme - we miss the excitement of senators telling stories and reading recipes (and possibly the phone book).
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

[Mindslicer]

So having to talk about anything is fine if you object to a law, but actually having to stick to the subject of why you oppose the law is extreme? Why?

And Rand Paul did do the 'stand up and talk' form of filibuster regarding drone strikes against Americans, but I imagine you wouldn't really see much of it from either team blue or team red nowadays.

[Felgraf]

[mouse]

[Mindslicer]

[stripeypants]

It is extremely debatable whether any of her other strikes should have counted.
_________________
::lesser crisis mode::

[mouse]

the other "diversions" were also things relevant to but not directly contained in the bill at hand.

basically, they didn't want her to mention any of the other things that might impact the ability of women in texas to get an abortion, even other laws would definitely also have an impact on how women were affected by the law under discussion.

sorta like if rand paul were filibustering the bill on drone strikes against americans, but was forbidden from mentioning any other bills that might cover who was subject to or protected from drone strikes, any bills that did things like define who is considered to be a terrorist, and probably habeus corpus.

(actually, i think one strike was that another legislator helped her put on a back brace. apparently only physically fit people are allowed to filibuster in texas.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

[Mindslicer]

[mouse]