Reply With Quote
Phelan is out
Bout time
This is an incredible level of trolling.
Phelan is out
Bout time
One less rino
Still plenty left to go
imagine if the SA had won and the German elites had lost in 1934
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/conte...le/roehm-purge
ostracizing and legally persecuting a minuscule minority is again really high on the list of Republican priorities
https://www.advocate.com/politics/te...ender-bathroomSpecial sessions are usually invoked by governors for emergency, priority bills. The first session was called in June, but in July, deadly flooding in the region wiped out a girls’ summer camp and caused the governor to add disaster preparedness and relief to the agenda. By tying voter suppression and anti-trans policies to the flood relief bills, the Texas GOP seemingly made a strategic move: They used dead kids in Texas as human shields for their assaults on civil rights.
how does stripping some people's right to use the bathroom helpful to Texans?
Rules are rules. Last time she was allowed to leave, unescorted, during a Legislative Session she fled the state, her job, and her responsibilities.
god what a boot licker you are
the legal argument against this is in this thread, try addressing that
oh yeah...hitler
Not my job to address. The House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session and free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theatre, they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that allows the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives.
In defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum I don't know how that works.
Not my job to address. I think this is what Cons utional scholars would call a "novel cons utional question" or "question of first impression." And, since I'm not a legal scholar, I'll not argue the legal points. The House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation; as she should. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session but, free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that authorizes the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow quorum-busting Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives.
On the other hand and, in defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar either), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum. I don't know how that works.
Not my job to address. I think this is what Cons utional scholars would call a "novel cons utional question" or "question of first impression." And, since I'm not a legal scholar, I'll not argue the legal points. The House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation; as she should. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session but, free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that authorizes the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow quorum-busting Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives.
On the other hand and, in defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar either), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum. I don't know how that works.
Not my job to address. Whether or not the Speaker of the Texas House has the authority to prevent a present Representative from leaving the Capitol is, I believe, what legal scholars would call a "novel cons utional question," or "question of first impression," as it has never been heard in any court. And, whatever legal argument was posted earlier in this thread has no influence on me or my argument that the Speaker is merely imposing a rule to which all Representative agree. In the meantime, the House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session and free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that ostensibly allows the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing, although (in fairness to all) the particular question of enforcement of the rule has never been addressed, or needed, since its inception. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives. Whether the enforcement of that rule passes legal muster is a question for the lawyers and courts.
In defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum I don't know how that works.
Not my job to address. Whether or not the Speaker of the Texas House has the authority to prevent a present Representative from leaving the Capitol is, I believe, what legal scholars would call a "novel cons utional question," or "question of first impression," as it has never been heard in any court. And, whatever legal argument was posted earlier in this thread has no influence on me or my argument that the Speaker is merely imposing a rule to which all Representative agree. In the meantime, the House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session and free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that ostensibly allows the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing, although (in fairness to all) the particular question of enforcement of the rule has never been addressed, or needed, since its inception. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives. Whether the enforcement of that rule passes legal muster is a question for the lawyers and courts.
In defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum I don't know how that works.
I've tried to post a more thoughtful response for the past 30 minutes now and the forum keeps taking a dump. This is something I've experienced quite a bit this year. Has something fundamental changed about the hosting of this forum? Anyway, I copied and saved my last attempt so, I'll try again later, Winehole.
oh yeah, I'm on record as saying comparing Trump with Hitler is passé
Trump is in his own category now
YV
you didn't address it
last night was a bleak one for TX legislature history. dan patrick literally denied senate democrats the ability to filibuster redistricting, even though rules allow it. roland gutierrez asked what precedent there was for this. patrick didn't even bother to answer. that's how the map passed.
I don't know what the is going on with this forum but, this is the first time since about 15 minutes after my previous post, that I've been able to get in. Thinking my IP had been flagged or something, I tried several different devices (with and without VPN) and no luck so, if that continues, my responses are liable to be much more infrequent.
Anyway, to respond to your last post on this topic:
Not my job to address. Whether or not the Speaker of the Texas House has the authority to prevent a present Representative from leaving the Capitol is, I believe, what legal scholars would call a "novel cons utional question," or "question of first impression," as it has never been heard in any court. And, whatever legal argument was posted earlier in this thread has no influence on me or my argument that the Speaker is merely imposing a rule to which all Representative agreed. In the meantime, the House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier availed herself of all legal means to address her situation. But, all arguments aside, she remained in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session and was, until then, free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're got it. I think they should have let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that ostensibly allows the Speaker to do what the current Speaker did, although (in fairness to all) the particular question of enforcement of the rule has never been addressed, or needed, since its inception. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow Democrats accepted the escorts and went about their lives. Whether the enforcement of that rule passes legal muster was a question for the lawyers and courts.
In conclusion, I wasn't licking any boots, just pointing out that the House is enforcing a long-standing rule (from 1949, under a Democratic Speaker) to prevent another quorum bust. Whether that enforcement is cons utional is exactly what Collier’s habeas pe ion is about. Until a court rules, the Speaker’s interpretation stands. That’s not bootlicking, that’s just how the process works. As it turns out, the rule was lifted once HB-4 passed and there was no longer a danger of the quorum being busted.
By the way, has anyone else had trouble getting into or posting in the forum? This isn't the first time and, frankly, it's why I haven't been around here much. That and the lack of intelligent opposition.
I don't know what the is going on with this forum but, this is the first time since about 15 minutes after my previous post, that I've been able to get in. Thinking my IP had been flagged or something, I tried several different devices (with and without VPN) and no luck so, if that continues, my responses are liable to be much more infrequent.
Anyway, to respond to your last post on this topic:
Not my job to address. Whether or not the Speaker of the Texas House has the authority to prevent a present Representative from leaving the Capitol is, I believe, what legal scholars would call a "novel cons utional question," or "question of first impression," as it has never been heard in any court. And, whatever legal argument was posted earlier in this thread has no influence on me or my argument that the Speaker is merely imposing a rule to which all Representative agree. In the meantime, the House rule seems to be doing its job. I'm sure Representative Collier is availing herself of all legal means to address her situation. Until then, she's in Session until the sine die adjournment of the 2nd Special Session and free to leave with an escort.
Democrats like theater; they're getting it. I think they should let her walk but, there is a House Rule - passed by a Democratic Legislature, under a Democratic Speaker, in 1949 that ostensibly allows the Speaker to do what the current Speaker is doing, although (in fairness to all) the particular question of enforcement of the rule has never been addressed, or needed, since its inception. I think Republicans are sick and tired of Democrats acting like babies and busting quorum every time an issue they don't like comes up for a vote. So, drawing on the ghost of Democratic Speaker Durwood Manford, Jr. they've chosen to use the rule his House ins uted in 1949 to keep Democrats from busting quorum - again. Collier's fellow Democrats accepted the escorts and are going about they're lives. Whether the enforcement of that rule passes legal muster is a question for the lawyers and courts.
In defense of Rep. Collier, the measure she opposed has passed the House and there's no longer a reason to compel her attendance - unless (and I'm not a legislative rules scholar), there's a concern they will not be able to adjourn the Session with a quorum I don't know how that works.
In conclusion, I wasn't licking any boots, just pointing out that the House is enforcing a long-standing rule (from 1949, under a Democratic Speaker) to prevent another quorum bust. Whether that enforcement is cons utional is exactly what Collier’s habeas pe ion is about. Until a court rules, the Speaker’s interpretation stands. That’s not bootlicking, that’s just how the process works.
As it turns out, the rule was lifted once HB-4 passed and there was no longer a danger of the quorum being busted.
By the way, has anyone else had trouble getting into or posting in the forum? This isn't the first time and, frankly, it's why I haven't been around here much. That and the lack of intelligent opposition.
that's bootlicking, tbh
turning the Texas House into a jail while there's a quorum already established and members are in their place is absurd and oppressive and a violation of basic freedom
once again, national conservatism manifests socially as restrictive speech codes with harsh state punishments for disfavored speech
in this case, various Houston area municipalities purport to censor school curriculum, content and student participation under authority of SB 12
https://www.aclutx.org/press-release...ool-districts/A U.S. district judge today granted a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of key aspects of Senate Bill 12 in Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISD until the case is fully resolved and issued an opinion explaining its reasoning. The court ordered that the districts are “enjoined from implementing policies pursuant to Sections 3, 7, 24, and 27 of S.B. 12, or otherwise enforcing those provisions, during the pendency of this litigation.”
opinion and order: https://www.aclutx.org/app/uploads/2...-INJUNCT-1.pdf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions