Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Texas Supreme Court rules...

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:29 PM

Star Member SouthBayDem (31,664 posts)

Texas Supreme Court rules quorum-breaking Democrats can be arrested, returned to House chamber

Source: Dallas Morning News

The Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that House Democrats boycotting a special legislative session can be arrested and forced back to chambers.

“The legal question before this Court concerns only whether the Texas Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to physically compel the attendance of absent members,” according to a written opinion signed by Justice James D. Blacklock, who wrote the opinion for the all-Republican court. “We conclude that it does, and we therefore direct the district court to withdraw the TRO [temporary restraining order].”

House Democrats broke quorum during a July special session to stall a GOP-driven elections bill that they contend is designed to suppress the votes of Black and Hispanic residents. More than 50 of the Democrats camped out in the nation’s capital, a move that served to elude arrest and bring national attention to what they described as the need for stronger federal voting rights legislation.

Read more: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/08/17/texas-supreme-court-rules-quorum-breaking-democrats-can-be-arrested-returned-to-house-chamber/

54 replies, 3980 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply Texas Supreme Court rules quorum-breaking Democrats can be arrested, returned to House chamber (Original post)
 SouthBayDem Aug 2021 OP
LineReply fuck the Texas SC
 Skittles Aug 2021 #1
LineLineReply A liberal Justice would have had to vote the same way
 Polybius Aug 2021 #35
LineLineLineNew Reply THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT EXCUSE
 Skittles Aug 2021 #52
LineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 Chin music Aug 2021 #2
LineReply Damn!
 elleng Aug 2021 #3
LineReply Well then, if that's a precedent,
 grumpyduck Aug 2021 #4
LineLineReply But...bipartisanship! Reaching across the aisle! Looking forward, not back! /sarc
 NullTuples Aug 2021 #16
LineLineReply It might be a precedent, but.......
 joshdawg Aug 2021 #19
LineLineLineReply Texas is NOT a Red State!
 Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #24
LineLineLineLineReply Well, when we have two republican Senators,
 joshdawg Aug 2021 #25
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Texas had a Democratic Governor who was a woman in 90s
 Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #45
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Electing a Democrat thirty years ago does not make a state "blue"
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #47
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply I get that! But I am saying roadblocks do thwart a Democrat from getting in.
 Smackdown2019 Aug 2021 #48
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply And I'm saying that that's not even close to being true
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #50
LineLineLineLineReply Um... no.
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #31
LineReply zero surprise
 DetroitLegalBeagle Aug 2021 #5
LineLineReply As each House provides but I do not see where it gives the power to them to issue a warrant
 cstanleytech Aug 2021 #20
LineLineLineReply That would be an argument for the police to make. Not the Democrats
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #23
LineReply Priorities in that State right now!
 Traildogbob Aug 2021 #6
LineReply Good thing TSC jurisdiction ends at the state line
 bluevoter4life Aug 2021 #7
LineLineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 Chin music Aug 2021 #8
LineLineLineReply i absolutely DID hear you like you're tom bodell! lol nt
 orleans Aug 2021 #9
LineReply If you love authoritarianism, just go to Texas.
 sinkingfeeling Aug 2021 #10
LineLineReply Oh the hypocrisy
 ripcord Aug 2021 #27
LineLineLineNew Reply Unable to see the relevant differences, eh?
 LanternWaste Aug 2021 #53
LineReply what's the penalty
 AlexSFCA Aug 2021 #11
LineLineReply No penalty (apart from losing a vote)
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #36
LineReply The Court ruling is justified...
 brooklynite Aug 2021 #12
LineReply Would they be safe in an embassy in DC?
 ArizonaLib Aug 2021 #13
LineLineReply Texas
 rso Aug 2021 #26
LineLineLineReply All?
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #32
LineLineLineLineReply Texas
 rso Aug 2021 #38
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Thanks!
 ArizonaLib Aug 2021 #54
LineReply Back in the late 70s the first time Jerry Brown was Governor
 Mr.Bill Aug 2021 #14
LineReply You think its time on the federal side of this small d democratic country should
 turbinetree Aug 2021 #15
LineReply Texas LEO's have no authority in DC- can't lay a hand on them. Nt
 Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #17
LineLineReply Question: what would the legal basis be for ignoring an extradition request?
 brooklynite Aug 2021 #39
LineLineLineReply DOJ could order US Marshals to stand down pending court appeals
 Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #41
LineLineLineLineNew Reply The key to this question is understanding what "extradition" and "arrest" mean
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #46
LineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Which is exactly what I presumed- Texas cant touch them in DC. Nt
 Fiendish Thingy Aug 2021 #49
LineReply The nine GOP assholes on the Texas Supreme court need to be voted out
 LetMyPeopleVote Aug 2021 #18
LineLineReply That may be true... but not because of this decision
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #22
LineReply This should now be appealed before the federal courts as its an issue where one of the Houses
 cstanleytech Aug 2021 #21
LineLineReply Like when Oregon Democrats ordered the same actions?
 ripcord Aug 2021 #28
LineLineLineReply I never said I claimed to support that action and in fact I did not even though
 cstanleytech Aug 2021 #30
LineLineReply Yes, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court... stat!
 machoneman Aug 2021 #29
LineLineLineReply On what grounds?
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #34
LineReply What a quaint idea, forced to participate in "democracy." n/t
 malthaussen Aug 2021 #33
LineLineReply The same rules apply in the US House...
 brooklynite Aug 2021 #37
LineLineLineReply Why make it personal?
 malthaussen Aug 2021 #43
LineReply To paraphrase that genocidal madman Andrew Jackson: "The Texas SC made its decision
 AZLD4Candidate Aug 2021 #40
LineLineReply Doesn't quite fit here
 FBaggins Aug 2021 #44
LineReply Round 'em up and send 'em home.
 twodogsbarking Aug 2021 #42
LineNew Reply Arrest yourselves assholes. Nt
 BootinUp Aug 2021 #51

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:30 PM

Star Member Skittles (149,464 posts)

1. fuck the Texas SC

bunch of partisan HACKS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:29 AM

Star Member Polybius (12,715 posts)

35. A liberal Justice would have had to vote the same way

From the Texas Constitution:

Section 8. Securing a Quorum — 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Polybius (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 05:24 PM

Star Member Skittles (149,464 posts)

52. THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT EXCUSE

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:31 PM

Star Member elleng (123,922 posts)

3. Damn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:44 PM

grumpyduck (5,583 posts)

4. Well then, if that's a precedent,

then use it against Republicans who do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grumpyduck (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 11:24 PM

NullTuples (6,017 posts)

16. But...bipartisanship! Reaching across the aisle! Looking forward, not back! /sarc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grumpyduck (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:33 AM

Star Member joshdawg (2,435 posts)

19. It might be a precedent, but.......

if it were the repubs out, the Texas SC would look the other way, because in Red State Texas, IOKIYAR!

republicans are pus-oozing sores in politics!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshdawg (Reply #19)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 07:29 AM

Smackdown2019 (1,057 posts)

24. Texas is NOT a Red State!

Texas is a blue state, it's just the Republicans district it to their favor and block Democrats from voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:14 AM

Star Member joshdawg (2,435 posts)

25. Well, when we have two republican Senators,

a republican governor, a republican lieutenant governor, a republican attorney general, and a supreme court made up of nothing but republicans, then I would state that Texas is a blood red state.
I should know, I have lived here all my life. 76years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to joshdawg (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:08 PM

Smackdown2019 (1,057 posts)

45. Texas had a Democratic Governor who was a woman in 90s

Since then, Republican have been putting up roadblocks across the US in voting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #45)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:24 PM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

47. Electing a Democrat thirty years ago does not make a state "blue"

Texas used to be solidly blue. That started to change with Reagan and over the next decade or so the state turned reliably red. That Richards election was about the end of the cycle. By '93, both senate seats were red and the state had gone red in four straight presidential elections.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FBaggins (Reply #47)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:32 PM

Smackdown2019 (1,057 posts)

48. I get that! But I am saying roadblocks do thwart a Democrat from getting in.

If we had a true election where everyone was allowed to vote without long lines, issues with their credentials due to their skin OR WHERE THEY LIVE; then it would be a blue state....

It is just a bunch of wannabe cowboys from the "Dallas" episode, that never used a shovel in their life, but knows all on how to dig out a slick trench and fall in it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #48)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:16 PM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

50. And I'm saying that that's not even close to being true

First - Ignore the "WHERE THEY LIVE" point. Gerrymandering has exactly zero impact on statewide elections. And if you're talking about long lines in heavily blue areas... those races are run by blue counties.

Second - Beto was the closest that we've come to winning statewide in recent TX elections and he lost by almost a quarter of a million votes. There is zero chance that a quarter of a million Democrats were denied the right to vote in TX (let alone the 640k that we lost the state by in last November's presidential election or 1.1 million in the senate race)

This claim is roughly on par with MAGAs thinking that fake ballots were flown in from China to swing the PA elections. If we lost a race by 500 votes, it might be reasonable to wonder about how many people were unable to vote... but a thousand times that many?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:20 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

31. Um... no.

Texas has shown signs in recent years of moving closer to the center. But it's definitely still a red state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 09:54 PM

DetroitLegalBeagle (1,661 posts)

5. zero surprise

Last edited Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Ignoring the partisan makeup of the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Constitution uses basically the same language as the US Constitution for compelling absent members.

US Constitution Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.


Texas State Constitution Article 3, Section 10
Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.


Congress has used this power in the past as have other states(Oregon is the most recent one I can think of besides Texas).

That being said, just stay out of the state. Texas police have no jurisdiction outside of Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DetroitLegalBeagle (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:30 AM

Star Member cstanleytech (24,977 posts)

20. As each House provides but I do not see where it gives the power to them to issue a warrant

that the police are compelled to obey as neither House has jurisdiction over them.
Just like for example no one in the House or Senate has jurisdiction to give anyone in the military an order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 06:56 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

23. That would be an argument for the police to make. Not the Democrats

The House sergeant at arms can deputize anyone to arrest them (within the state of course).

An individual police officer could try to make a case that “Hey! You’re not the bossa me!”. He would lose because the governor is… but he could at least make the case. But the target of the arrest order doesn’t have a claim that “only the House Sargent at arms can get me”

So if the governor were a Democrat, he could decide to tell the police not to exercise the warrant. But the House could use anyone it wanted. They could deputize the local high school football team to do the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:00 PM

Traildogbob (7,042 posts)

6. Priorities in that State right now!

Fuck you Texans, is the message sent from those you vote for to its citizens. At least they’ve ordered some morgue trucks for you. The bed you made, and intend to remain in. What a shit hole country Texas and Florida are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:05 PM

bluevoter4life (776 posts)

7. Good thing TSC jurisdiction ends at the state line

Keep strong Texas Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bluevoter4life (Reply #7)

Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to Chin music (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:18 PM

Star Member orleans (32,521 posts)

9. i absolutely DID hear you like you're tom bodell! lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:28 PM

Star Member sinkingfeeling (48,075 posts)

10. If you love authoritarianism, just go to Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:00 AM

ripcord (3,957 posts)

27. Oh the hypocrisy

Everyone here was cheering in 2019 when Oregon State police were chasing Republicans who chose to deny a quorum. No one was calling Oregon authoritarian for trying to arrest them, people here wanted them dragged into the state Capitol in handcuffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ripcord (Reply #27)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:07 PM

LanternWaste (37,748 posts)

53. Unable to see the relevant differences, eh?

 

I get it... the narratives we set for ourselves, and done at the expense of others, are hard habits to break. Cool allegations, bruh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:30 PM

AlexSFCA (6,092 posts)

11. what's the penalty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlexSFCA (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:29 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

36. No penalty (apart from losing a vote)

This isn't a criminal arrest that would be followed by charges and (if guilty) some sort of punishment.

It's physically restraining someone and dragging them to the legislature... and holding them there until dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:32 PM

Star Member brooklynite (86,880 posts)

12. The Court ruling is justified...

…based on Texas and Federal law.

I’m not disputing what the Texas House Democrats are doing. But legally speaking, a legislature can compel the attendance of its members. People need to atop reacting emotionally to “arrested” and understand that it doesn’t mean sending them to jail, it means returning them to the legislative chamber to vote on the policy issues before the chamber.

Nb - I suspect you’d find that rule existed long before the Republicans took control of the Texas legislature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:41 PM

ArizonaLib (1,168 posts)

13. Would they be safe in an embassy in DC?

Seems like the same sanctuary kind of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ArizonaLib (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 08:26 AM

rso (1,969 posts)

26. Texas

All they have to do is stay out of Texas, as Texas law has no authority outside of Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rso (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:25 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

32. All?

Texas House members only make a few thousand dollars per year. It's a part-time job and almost all of them have other things that they need to be doing (and that's before we even count being away from their families and communities).

If it were just a week or two - or even a month, that would be one thing. But the governor has the power to call one session after another for as long as he wants to. So "all" they have to do is stay away from their homes/families/careers for... six months? A year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FBaggins (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:50 AM

rso (1,969 posts)

38. Texas

Of course, but my reply was to the previous comment about possibly seeking refuge in a foreign Embassy in Wash DC.. Certainly, in relative terms, simply staying out of Texas is a far easier alternative than seeking diplomatic asylum in a foreign Embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rso (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 20, 2021, 02:11 AM

ArizonaLib (1,168 posts)

54. Thanks!

I appreciate your clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 10:47 PM

Star Member Mr.Bill (20,926 posts)

14. Back in the late 70s the first time Jerry Brown was Governor

of California he threatened to do the same thing to republicans that were denying a quorum by staying away. They had not left the state, though, and when Brown gave the command to state police to round them up they voluntarily returned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Tue Aug 17, 2021, 11:05 PM

Star Member turbinetree (24,079 posts)

15. You think its time on the federal side of this small d democratic country should

vote on voting rights legislation today and not tomorrow.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:30 AM

Star Member Fiendish Thingy (12,751 posts)

17. Texas LEO's have no authority in DC- can't lay a hand on them. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:53 AM

Star Member brooklynite (86,880 posts)

39. Question: what would the legal basis be for ignoring an extradition request?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to brooklynite (Reply #39)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:12 PM

Star Member Fiendish Thingy (12,751 posts)

41. DOJ could order US Marshals to stand down pending court appeals

I’m assuming it would be US Marshals who would be the ones to transport any TX reps back to Tx?

Not sure how extradition works between DC and the states, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that Abbott can forcibly bring them back.

Here’s some info:

https://koehlerlaw.net/other-offenses/extradition/

If the fugitive contests extradition, the court will schedule a hearing within 30 days. At the hearing, the court will order the fugitive’s return to the demanding state provided that the prosecution can show three things: (1) the fugitive is in fact the person sought by the demanding state, (2) the fugitive is charged with a crime in that state, and (3) the fugitive was in the demanding state at the time the offense was committed.


Since the Reps weren’t in TX at the time the arrest warrants were issued, they might be able to contest extradition successfully. In any case, they can delay for 30 days, if and when they are apprehended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:11 PM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

46. The key to this question is understanding what "extradition" and "arrest" mean

Extradition is a formal process by which someone charged with a crime is delivered from one state to another. This occurs even for petty offenses and even if the crime is not a crime in the state where the fugitive is found.

But there is no crime involved here - so extradition simply doesn't apply.

"Arrest" means simply seizing someone by action of legal authority. That usually happens in the case of a crime and is usually performed by law enforceent, so people naturally associate the two as being related. But really (as above), there's no crime involved here - and it doesn't have to be done by the police. The legislature has the power to seize (or have them seized) a quorum buster and drag the to the floor. So that's an "arrest"... but it isn't at all the same thing as a situation where other states (or the feds) could be asked to help out... and any authority coming from the Texas constitution ends at the Texas border.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FBaggins (Reply #46)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:48 PM

Star Member Fiendish Thingy (12,751 posts)

49. Which is exactly what I presumed- Texas cant touch them in DC. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 01:17 AM

Star Member LetMyPeopleVote (130,101 posts)

18. The nine GOP assholes on the Texas Supreme court need to be voted out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 06:42 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

22. That may be true... but not because of this decision

The state constitution couldn’t be clearer. To rule any other way would have been nearly impossible. Nine progressive justices would have ruled in just the same way (though perhaps they would have waited for the lower court to rule first)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 02:34 AM

Star Member cstanleytech (24,977 posts)

21. This should now be appealed before the federal courts as its an issue where one of the Houses

of a state are trying to order the police to do something and its no different imo than someone say like Cancun Cruz trying to order someone in the military to shoot someone just because he is a Senator.
Now if the State constitution grants the House the power to order the police to arrest someone then that is one thing but unless it does its a broad overstepping of their powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:02 AM

ripcord (3,957 posts)

28. Like when Oregon Democrats ordered the same actions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ripcord (Reply #28)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:29 AM

Star Member cstanleytech (24,977 posts)

30. I never said I claimed to support that action and in fact I did not even though

I thought that the reasons the Republicans were doing it for was shitty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cstanleytech (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 09:20 AM

machoneman (3,518 posts)

29. Yes, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court... stat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to machoneman (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:23 AM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

34. On what grounds?

The Texas constitution couldn't be clearer:

Sec. 10. QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.


And what are the constitutionally sanctioned manners that the state house has provided?

Section 8. Securing a Quorum — 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.


Every single Democrat voted for the rule.

So what would they be asking the US Supreme Court to do?

They don't have a legal leg to stand on. They may have a moral leg to remain outside the jurisdiction of anyone within the state who might try to arrest them... but they have no legal appeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 10:46 AM

malthaussen (16,045 posts)

33. What a quaint idea, forced to participate in "democracy." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to malthaussen (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 11:45 AM

Star Member brooklynite (86,880 posts)

37. The same rules apply in the US House...

are you suggesting that Speaker Pelosi is being oppressive by keeping them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to brooklynite (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:38 PM

malthaussen (16,045 posts)

43. Why make it personal?

I'm suggesting that the idea of forced attendance to a democratic assembly is contradictory. So is fining people for not voting, yet Australia does that. I find the idea paradoxical.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:03 PM

Star Member AZLD4Candidate (4,676 posts)

40. To paraphrase that genocidal madman Andrew Jackson: "The Texas SC made its decision

let's see them enforce it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AZLD4Candidate (Reply #40)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:59 PM

FBaggins (25,902 posts)

44. Doesn't quite fit here

Jackson was pointing out that the SC has no army. The other two branches have to enforce their decisions.

In this case, all three branches agree that the quorum-busting members are subject to being compelled to return. So they absolutely can "enforce it" if the missing members are within Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 12:36 PM

twodogsbarking (6,441 posts)

42. Round 'em up and send 'em home.

Sounds familiar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SouthBayDem (Original post)

Wed Aug 18, 2021, 05:00 PM

Star Member BootinUp (44,321 posts)

51. Arrest yourselves assholes. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

Latest Breaking News (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2023 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.