RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Texas Democrats kicking arse(13 posts)

Texas Democrats kicking arseMJ
May 13, 2003 6:57 AM
http://www.statesman.com/legislature/content/coxnet/texas/legislature/0503/0513walk.html
sounds like they abandoned their duties and should be ousted nmDougSloan
May 13, 2003 7:05 AM
Ousted? You mean impeached? I didn't know they wereOldEdScott
May 13, 2003 7:35 AM
having extramarital sex in that hotel...

FWIW, walkouts like this have been a standard parliamentary tactic since the dawn of representative government. That's one reason the Kentucky Constitution specifically authorizes the House Speaker or the Senate President to order the sergeant-at-arms to arrest any member not present for a legislative session.

I know you think it's doubly evil because these are scurrilous Democrats playing partisan politics and not noble Republicans standing up for principle, but the sad fact is, Repubs have done this a zillion times too. I'm SURE for much better reason, admittedly. Repubs ALWAYS do things for principle, not politics.
OustedDougSloan
May 13, 2003 8:09 AM
Sure,others may have done it. They deserve(d) to be OUSTED, too.

Doug

PS:

Main Entry: oust
Pronunciation: 'aust
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ouster, from Old French oster, from Late Latin obstare to ward off, from Latin, to stand in the way, from ob- in the way + stare to stand -- more at OB-, STAND
Date: 15th century
1 a : to remove from or dispossess of property or position by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity b : to take away (as a right or authority) : BAR, REMOVE
2 : to take the place of : SUPPLANT
synonym see EJECT
Well, your definition is naught but aOldEdScott
May 13, 2003 9:06 AM
vaguely ominous threat: 'by legal action, by force, or by the compulsion of necessity.' Do you mean shoot them? Federal agents hauling them off in leg irons? ATF agents storming the motel compound, failing, then sending the FBI to burn it down?

As far as 'ejecting,' there's only three ways I know: Refusing to seat by virtue of being unqualified, impeachment and removal, and being turned out by the voters.

I would guess even Republicans would find it unpalatable to just refuse to seat every member of the opposing party, or to conduct mass impeachments. But maybe not. On second thought, it seems their style.

I'd say the voters will decide this one. That's the way democracy generally works, usually pretty well.
there is precedent for some of your suggestions nmDougSloan
May 13, 2003 9:31 AM
Members of Texas House would best serve the Republic...Dale Brigham
May 13, 2003 9:24 AM
... by all going home (or to undisclosed locations). There's an old saying in Texas about the Republic being in peril whenever the Texas Congress is in session. In this case, the Democratic members finally took that to heart.

Dale
No. Just shirking their duty.moneyman
May 13, 2003 7:25 AM
As elected members of the state legislature, they have responsibilities to their constituents to, at the very least, show up and debate the issues. If they are not in the majority, they will lose more battles than they win. The citizens of Texas want more Republicans than Democrats in the Legislature and that's what the Democrats will have to live with. That's just how it works. For them to leave reminds me of a spoiled child who, after having a call go against him, takes his ball and goes home, leaving the other players scratching their heads.

The story says that they are "working" while they are holed up in a hotel and having breakfast at Denny's. I don't know what the law is in Texas, but I am certain that would be a violation of the open meeting law in Wyoming, where I am more familiar with the process.

I hope the Texas Rangers, (the law officers,not the baseball team), stage a covert operation, cross the state line and drag all those cowards back to do the work they are getting paid to do.

$$
Why can't they legislate and vote ....Live Steam
May 13, 2003 7:26 AM
WITHOUT THEM?
Quorummoneyman
May 13, 2003 7:36 AM
They need one and without the Dems they don't have one.

$$
I don't think it is because the other ...Live Steam
May 13, 2003 7:50 AM
party is not present. They probably need a certain percentage of the total to constitute a quarum. I should have "thunk" first before askin' :O)
Oh Steam, my good friend, don't beat up on yourself!OldEdScott
May 13, 2003 7:53 AM
You've never let thinking stand in the way of posting before, why should you worry about it now? Buck UP! Go ahead and bash me or Clinton a little, just to make yourself feel better! We don't need a quarum for THAT!
:O) I'm playin' the court jesta for ya' agin am I?Live Steam
May 13, 2003 7:58 AM
I don't have fun bashin' yall, don't think I eva have. I certainly do get some thrills bashin' Bubba tho :O)