Kilmer17 Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Those wacky crybaby take my ball and go home Democrats in Texas run away again. AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Democratic state lawmakers fled Texas on Monday for the second time in three months to thwart a Republican drive to redraw the state's congressional districts. Eleven of the 12 Democrats in the state Senate left for Albuquerque, New Mexico, as a first special session called by the governor to address redistricting drew to a close and he called a second special session, scheduled to begin Wednesday. The second session could last as long as 30 days. In May, during the regular spring session, the Republicans tried to push redistricting toward a vote in the GOP-controlled state House. But 51 Democrats in that chamber fled across the state line to Oklahoma to block a quorum, killing the bill. Republicans are pressing for more seats in the state's 32-member delegation in the U.S. House; the Democrats currently hold a 17-15 advantage. Republicans say that ratio does not reflect the state's increasingly Republican voting patterns. Most Democrats want to keep the existing congressional map drawn by a three-judge federal panel in 2001, calling redistricting a power grab pushed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican. The Senate and House adjourned their special session Monday afternoon. Shortly afterward, Republican Gov. Rick Perry called a new one. Two-thirds of the Senate's 31 members must be present to conduct business. The absence of the 11 Democrats can hold up passage of any bill. During the first special session, Senate Democrats were able to block a redistricting bill that could have given Republicans an additional seven seats. Eleven Democrats and one Republican stood firm against the bill. Senate rules require that two-thirds of the chamber support a bill before it can be taken up for debate. Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said he would do away with that rule during the second session so that only a majority would be needed to debate a bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Looks like its over the same issue, Kilmer. Cracking and packing is no good...no matter who does it. Its the wrong way to go about fighting it...but it was effective the 1st time. Let's see if the GOP strongarms the police again into going after them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 Rumor has it that since this is a special session it has no set in stone end date. Therefore the Gov can keep it going forever. However, the Texas law requires that state legislatures reside in Texas for a certain percentage each year. It's a big game of chicken, but one the GOP will win in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman56 Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 You must admit, its pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 insanity Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Those crazy jerrymandering Republicans must not have any more important issues to address! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 This is pathetic......Republicans suck and Democrats suck....our government is going to he**, I mean we are having a general recall vote for a governor in California...we have cops being called on politicians...I even saw people protesting today about impeaching Chaney..calling him Hitler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 I hope the people of Texas are watching, viewing how their legislators conduct business. What's this teach our kids, when things get tough and don't go your way... do whatever necessary to avoid the situation at all cost. These legislators should be removed from office!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 I wonder if the Republicans will be illegally using the Homeland Security folks for partisan purposes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 you mean like the dems use the unions? just trained at the feet of the masters I guess..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Not that I actually think your comment was an attempt at the actual attempt to compare behaviors, but Last time I checked, "the unions" weren't a taxpayer-funded, armed, branch of the Government. I assume you'll be able to cite some cases in which those wascally wiberals have sent "the unions" out to forcably sieze people, to compell them to, say, vote the way one political party thinks they should. I know that, if "the unions" wanted to, say, refuse to allow gay members, then all you freedom-loving conservatives would be quick to point out that "the unions" (unlike Homeland Security) are a private (as opposed to Government) organization, and therefore is allowed to use their financial power over their members to coerce their political obedience. (I'll avoid asking these same, limited-federal-government conservatives to explain why it is that: When a state wants to make it illegal for any gay to have sex, ever, then clearly that's a metter for the state to decide, and it would be an abuse of federal power to try to bring the US Consitiution into it. But, When a state wants to, say, grant equal rights to those same gays (by allowing them to marry), then clearly this is a case to be decided at the federal level. [/list=1] I'll just ask these folks who believe in "limited government" to explain how they justify using a federal office that's been granted blank-check authority (by these same "limited government" people), to arrest american citizens, without accusing them of violating any law, to force them to comply with a political objective.(You might also explain how you can claim that all the folks who object to the creation of a Committee for State Security are either terrorists or paranoid, in light of the fact that, in this particular case, it took less than a year to get from the creation of the organization till the party in power decided it would be a good idea to use it against a political opponent.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 When an union member has his money diverted to a political group against his will then is shushed when he complains something is wrong. Teacher Unions using their power at the expense of kids for their agenda. Funny how these "American Citizens" tend to have been immigrants from terrorist backing nations like the 6 recently arrested that confessed that they would fight our troops on MSNBC and Fox news. So lets not make it sound like Suzy homemaker Average Joe or hip hop Hank is going to be arrested for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 When an union member has his money diverted to a political group against his will then is shushed when he complains something is wrong. Whereas, OTOH, when a corporation makes a political contribution, then the stockholders' support for that position is unanimous, right? How many R's would support a law, requiring unions, before making a political contribution, receive unanimous consent from all union members (or give them back their share of the contribution), if corporations were required to do the same thing with every stockholder? Teacher Unions using their power at the expense of kids for their agenda. I assume you have something in particular in mind, but it'd help if I knew what, specifically, you're talking about. Funny how these "American Citizens" tend to have been immigrants from terrorist backing nations . . . I'm sorry, I forgot that the Constitution didn't apply to recent citizens. So lets not make it sound like Suzy homemaker Average Joe or hip hop Hank is going to be arrested for no reason. Oh, no. It'll be for "national security" reasons, just like the leglislators in the example. They'll be "disapeared" because somebody (but we don't have to say who) decided (based on things we don't see) that there was a reason (which doesn't have to be specified) that was good enough (to meet an unspecified standard of proof). And when (if) they're released, without any charges even being filed, then somebody (who says he's better than liberals like me, because he believes in limiting the powers of government) will point at the fact that the Government generously decided to let him go, eventually, and say "See! The system does work." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Sigh, there Kilmer goes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 that's what i was thinking henry... good thing football season is almost here and all the partisan crap will be pushed to the backburner until feb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 Just reporting the news folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J33Edwards Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Sigh, there Kilmer goes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.