Rebel Texas Democrats to Hold Conference

cobalt wrote:

Yep! This whole thing is/was about preventing 'royalty' from imposing unjust fiefdoms among the freed serfs.

Are you claiming that Texas legislators have no right to discuss policy with federal legislators, or is it your contention that when Republicans have a majority, our system should not be allowed to function? Confused

That you dislike what they wanted to do does not mean government should be prevented from functioning. How can you not "get" that these people hijacked the system simply because they didn't like the fact that they weren't going to get their way.

And unless I missed something, no Democrat from the Texas legislature pulled this stunt when the Dems redistricted in their own favor back in 1991. When they had the majority and could skew things in their own favor, it was "the will of the people". When the Republicans have the majority (as elected by the people) suddenly they choose to run rather than allow the Republicans to do what the Dems have done, would do, and will do again when/if the roles are reversed.

0 Replies

"Austin - Several hundred small picture, me-centric people cheered the damage done to the concept of rule by a representative majority today as Democrats slunk back across the border."

And this is quoted from what? Doesn't sound like any kind of news reporting. Sounds more like a sour opinion from someone who lost. However, to make it credible, we'll really have to have a source.

Craddick is sure backing off from this one, and the Homeland Security is bending over backward to say the directive didn't come from them.

0 Replies

So why didn't the Republicans use this tactic in 1991? Are they nicer people? With all due respect to Tom DeLay, I don't even think HE would accuse himself of that!

0 Replies

Get those coppers over to the Bush household! The twins are smoking from a hookah again...
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,563285,00.html

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

So why didn't the Republicans use this tactic in 1991? Are they nicer people? With all due respect to Tom DeLay, I don't even think HE would accuse himself of that!

Well, I can't speak for any of the individuals involved, but I tend to believe that they didn't because they chose to believe in the system and follow the rule of law, even though that meant they would lose out.

Or in other words, based purely on that choice (not to duck and run in 1991) I would say those Republican legislators were acting based on big-picture thinking, valuing what is best for all over what was best for them personally, or for their party.

0 Replies

Yes, and all Republicans also floss their teeth every day, are kind to children and small animals, send roses to their moms on Mothers Day, and say their prayers before tucking themselves in at night.

That's very sweet, Scrat. I'm kind of touched...

0 Replies

Dart - Hopefully I was clear in that I was focusing on the question asked and one specific choice made by a group of specific people. There are bad actors at all points on the political spectrum. These individuals are likely not saints, nor a homogenous sampling of conservative politicians, but when someone asks me why I think some people don't break the law for personal or group gain, I have to assume it is because in that instance they felt the principal was more important than their personal gain or loss.

Nice to know I touched someone today, though. Very Happy

0 Replies

But I've heard, some sent strangers in the wrong direction and cross the street at red light!

0 Replies

Walter, this has given a lot of us some laughs.

I've figured out scrat's problem. No matter how many times he's told what the democrats did is legal, no matter how many times the Texas law regarding that is given here, he cannot allow himself to believe it. If he does, then everything else he says falls flat. And if he falls flat, he hits himself on the chin. Which then hinders his ability to talk more.

And the source for that Austin quote, scrat? If you're going to offer a quote, you can't just walk away from it. Come on. inquiring minds want to know.

0 Replies

Thought ya'll might enjoy reading an excerpt from John Kelso's column in the Austin American Statesman:
............."You folks watching us making fools of ourselves on BBC, let me explain that there is one simple explanation for our silly behavior. See, Democrats and Republicans in Texas hate one another's guts.
You can blame the Democrats for running of to Oklahoma instead of tending to their knitting back home. Or you can blame Tom Craddick, the Republican speaker of the House who couldn't lead a pack of Cub Scouts to a Baskin-robbins.
But it goes deeper than that. This is the Hatfields and McCoys. this is like a bad marriage where lamps are tossed and sheets are split.
A Democratic woman is looking for her inner child. A Republican woman is looking for her MasterCard. By the way Republicans don't do pastels............"
And here's one from the Dallas Morning News: Politics 101 Good is bad, bad is good. Black is white. Cowardice is courage, Democracy is great if Im in the majority.Jobs are good, job creators are bad. Rich is evil, poor is proud, Taxes are good, tax cuts are evil, In the government I trust, majority is good unless I disagree. If I can't win, I'll quit and call it brave Very Happy

Don't get an ulcer over this, this is nothing new in Texas, ya'll would have loved Bob Bullock! His was a Democrat and beloved by everyone, boy could he shoot his guns in the air and scare the hell out of every one!

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

I've figured out scrat's problem. No matter how many times he's told what the democrats did is legal, no matter how many times the Texas law regarding that is given here, he cannot allow himself to believe it.

Quote:

The Democratic party's insistence on illegally shutting down the Texas legislature, rather than be outvoted after losing a mere election, is the latest evidence that many of our opponents are shameless street fighters.
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5448.shtml

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86820,00.html

Quote:

The Texas House rules allow for the arrest of members who intentionally bust a quorum. Rule 5, section 8 states:

When a call of the House is moved for one of the above purposes and seconded by 15 members (of whom the speaker may be one) and ordered by a majority vote, the main entrance to the hall and all other doors leading out of the hall shall be locked and no member permitted to leave the House without the written permission of the speaker.

The names of members present shall be recorded. All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.

The House shall determine on what conditions they shall be discharged. Members who voluntarily appear shall, unless the House otherwise directs, be immediately admitted to the hall of the House and shall report their names to the clerk to be entered in the journal as present.

Until a quorum appears, should the roll call fail to show one present, no business shall be transacted, except to compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn. It shall not be in order to recess under a call of the House.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/03/legislature/1906621

These legislative rules are LAW. Breaking them is to break the LAW. In its common usage in the English language, the word "illegal" refers to an act that breaks the LAW.

You might want to inform yourself on the difference between something being "legal" and simply lacking a penalty under the criminal justice code. It is "illegal" to take away the right to free speech, but doing so won't land you in the pokey.

0 Replies

Perhaps if you thought of what they did as "civil disobedience" you'd feel OK about it, Scrat. Or maybe not...

0 Replies

Dart - Perhaps... though, I am curious whether you've seriously considered whether you would see this differently if the parties were reversed. I would not.

Consider the fillibuster. It is a way for a person or persons who hold the minority position to block voting on a bill. In this regard it is identical to what the TX Dems sought and achieved. The difference is that the rules allow for fillibustering. As previously noted, the rules in TX do not allow representatives to intentionally deprive the chamber of a quorum.

0 Replies

I know it's been brought up before in this thread, but after the shenanigans of the 2000 election, the kind of maneuvering the Texas Dems pulled off is small-fry stuff. We're way past that in this country...

There's a word to describe the Republicans who are crying foul: disingenuous.

0 Replies

(sigh) Here we go again...

The only shenanigans that occurred during the 200 elections in FL were efforts by Gore and his supporters to force an illegal recount after the results showed Bush was the winner.

FL law is clear on this point*, though I understand that there are many here who do not care what the facts are in this case.

(*I know for a fact that the law in place in 2000 can be easily found on their Web site.)

0 Replies

Scrat

I doubt that 'rules' are LAW.

As far as I remember US-American legal science, you have 'law', 'command' and 'rule'.
Rules are - you certainly know that better, so please correct me - "recognized by those for whom they exist and hence evoke from them a prompt intuitive response. They need no enforcement but are voluntarily accepted."
They have neither the form of laws nor the limitations of a command - my law book from university says.

0 Replies

Walter - The rules which govern the functioning of a legislature are rather different than the rules which govern a bridge club. These rules are enacted by the passage of laws, and hold the weight of such.

0 Replies

I didn't study bridge but law, and International Law was taught by an American.

0 Replies

Scrat:

Your inability to comprehend rule vs. law (at least as it relates in Texas) is comical.

And your insistence that you are correct when you're not is ridiculous.

I realize now you can't be trespassers will after all, because he is much smarter than this.

I explained it all several posts back so you need to go back and read it.

As we say in Texas: "Y'ain't from around here, are ya?"

0 Replies

That's right PDiddie!, these folks need to lighten up! Having lunch with my "killer bee" cousin next week, I'll let you know some of his thoughts! Elvis done left the building!!!!!!!! Laughing

0 Replies

Rebel Texas Democrats to Hold Conference

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know