One can govern by consensus or one can govern by cramming one's agenda down another's throat.
I suppose it's all a matter of technique...
Tartarin wrote:Delighted -- just delighted!
Me too! Me too!!
I am especially concerned if the strong arm of the Patriot Act was used to track them down. That, to me, is just scary.
I don't think it's a matter of technique so much as a matter of interpretation. I also don't think it's an either or. I think it is an example of governing by a consenus that is large and that makes the opposition claim that there is cramming going on. In this case the opposition decided to use an illlegal technique (purposefully precluding a quorum).
A victimless crime, Craven.
Denying a quorum is a time-honored tradition in the halls of justice.
I don't agree that it is a victimless crime. Any crime that is so easily accepted makes the rule of law the victim. I never said the law was fair but if it isn't it should be changed.
Even if it were legal I still find it a strong arm tactic. They could have made a point without interrupting the process.
We are governed by those processes, and it is to our interest to ensure that they function.
Quote:Q: Why are congressional districts an issue for the House?
A: By federal law, each state is required to redraw congressional boundaries after each census to keep each district with an equal number of residents.
Q: So didn't the Legislature do that already?
A: No. Lawmakers in 2001 couldn't agree on how to draw the congressional map.
Q: Does that mean it has to be done now?
A: No. By law, a federal court drew the map after lawmakers failed to. That map was used for the 2002 elections and produced a 17-15 Democratic majority in the state's 32-member congressional delegation.
Q: So why is it an issue?
A: Texas Republicans, who control the Legislature and all statewide offices, resent that Democrats control the congressional delegation. Some have said they must redraw the map, but Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott said that's not the case.
Q: Can the Republicans simply redraw the map on their own?
A: No. The House can't do anything without 100 of the 150 members in attendance. On Tuesday, there were 95 members there and 51 in Oklahoma. Four other Democrats remained unaccounted for.
Q: How long can this go on?
A: The House faces a crucial deadline Thursday night. It would take extraordinary steps to pass a redistricting plan after that.
How the battle over redistricting began
This power grab by the Republicans will fail.
And the rule of law will survive unscathed.
Well, I just watched a news conference from the capital then from OK. The bill is dead. Democrats say they will be back after midnight. And they (Democrats) are now looking forward to working with the Republicans for the rest of the session.
...................that ain't a gonna happen folks
max wrote:Well, I just watched a news conference from the capital then from OK. The bill is dead. Democrats say they will be back after midnight. And they (Democrats) are now looking forward to working with the Republicans for the rest of the session.
...................that ain't a gonna happen folks
And so begins a new chapter in the deterioration of American representative democracy and the rule of law. Having won by this tactic once, it will be used again and again until having a majority of representatives in support of the passage of a given bill will become meaningless.
But what am I worrying about? This was a
victimless crime.
Scrat, that's a bit of a slippery slope argument. I don't think we will slide but I recognize your point. If it were to become the norm (I don't think it will) it would be a big problem.
Granted, I state it in the extreme, but to have the rule of the representative majority thwarted once successfully surely means it will happen again, and again, ...
The very meaning of the slippery slope fallacy is that one thing does not "surely" lead to another and that a link needs to be made.
I'm completely in agreement with you but simply do not think it will be frequently repeated. If it is, there will be new laws to address it.
Scrat wrote:
And so begins a new chapter in the deterioration of American representative democracy and the rule of law. Having won by this tactic once, it will be used again and again until having a majority of representatives in support of the passage of a given bill will become meaningless.
Buckle your chinstrap, Chicken Little. I'll keep an eye out for you.
PD - Some people tend to judge actions based on whether the outcome suits their desires. I call these small picture, me-centric small-picture, me-centric(*There are small picture me-centric folks at all points on the political spectrum.)
Aren't you overlooking the fact that what the republicans wanted to do under DeLay's instructions was not exactly kosher? Legally, they had a re-drawn re-districting map drawn up and approved, within the legal appointed time.
So the question of the republican motive for change should be there. And this move on the part of the democrats is legal. Maybe morally unacceptable to the republicans, but then, so is the republican original move of attempting to re-draw morally unacceptable to the democrats. Now the position is that the republicans are mad that they got outsmarted by the democrats.
I don't see this as a slippery slope at all. But it might give the repubs pause for thinking, rather than reacting.
And since DeLay's actions are regarded by so many on both sides as being quite often reprehensible, taking his word for anything is no guarantee of a purity or tuth of conviction.
I think they picked a perfect place for a bunch of demos to go into hiding.
Know why it's called a toothbrush and not a teethbrush?
...Because it was invented in ArkaOklahoma.
Scrat wrote:Democrats who care about our system of government and the rule of law ought to be just as outraged as everyone else. This isn't about party politics. This is about whether or not representative democracy operates under the rule of law, or by the whim of anyone willing to do anything to get what he or she wants.
First of all, let's straighten this 'rule of law' you keep crying about.
What do you think a quorum call is and why do you think it exists?
There's a history of this sort of thing in Texas (Tom Craddick himself did it during the Sharpstown scandal, but I won't bother you by suggesting that you
look it up).
And I believe that public polling will shortly show that "everyone else" supports the civl disobedience of these patriots to deny an megalomaniacal despot in Washington to dictate to his lackeys in Austin how to re-write, and re-vote on, legislation lost to them while
they were in the minority.
The Killer D's made history for their courageous stance.
And not just in Texas.
cjhsa wrote:I think they picked a perfect place for a bunch of demos to go into hiding.
Know why it's called a toothbrush and not a teethbrush?
...Because it was invented in Arkansas.
What kind of idiotic nonsequitur is this?
Surely you meant Oklahoma, and it still wasn't funny.
(Personally, I would have found myself in Cuidad Acuna or Matamoros, sipping a frozen margarita. Or perhaps at the casinos in Lake Charles, doing my best Bill Bennett imitation. But hey, I'm guessing they didn't want to come in for any criticism... :wink: )
PD - I see nothing in what I wrote that a reasonable person would call "crying", but I get the point that you disagree.
mj - You seem to be suggesting that the fact that you find the legal actions of the Republicans undesirable justifies the illegal actions the Democrats took to thwart them. Am I understanding you correctly?
Sorry, I got my Okies and Razorbacks mixed up there PD. Thanks for pointing it out.
Your friend,
Hard Wood
Threadgills! (sob...!) (Though I personally prefer catfish day.)
It's one thing to insult each other covertly or overtly here in these discussions. But I really, really dislike the dismissing of whole states, like Arkansas, the way Cjhsa has done. Anyone else uneasy about this? I know we rightly disallow n-words and other blatant nastinesss -- could we ease up on Arkansans, please? Hey, I'm from Maine and am not a stakeholder, as they say these days, in Arkansas. But I am a stakeholder in America and its terrific fifty. I don't know where Cjhsa is from, but it's a state which may be suffering some embarrassment on his account at this point.
I suppose Bull Connor, being The Law, was really right in going after all those damn protesters. Here in Texas, a state full of independent sorts (and that's a good reason for living here, let me tell you), there's a history of Bull Connors and there's a history of protest.... As PDiddie has pointed out, with specifics. So when strong-arming is used on either side of the political spectrum (and I'm dubious as to whether, with the two parties we now have, we can even call it a spectrum anymore), I go with the strong-minded, not the strong arms. That the strong-minded have finally shown up in my party, after a curious absence of two years, is reason to drive up to Ardmore and kiss those guys lustily. Instead, I phoned their offices in the State House and said, "Thank you."
Continue to be delighted and will check in now and then to see how the blubberers are doing.
