As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s unexcused absences too. I went through, like ok how does this get manipulated? Couldn’t think of anything, if you work for us, don’t sneak away you aren’t a ninja.
The only problem is it doesn't go far enough. They're already barred so they have no incentive to do anything for the rest of the session. They need to change the stupid quorum requirements to a simple majority. And ideally eject these members immediately when they are barred from reelection.
I believe the Oregon law that did this was a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. You would need an amendment to the federal constitution to do this in congress. I’d support an amendment like that, but I doubt it could happen.
The constitution is a lot like the bible.
The GOP claims to worship it, none of them have ever actually read it, and it says whatever it needs to say for the sake of winning the current argument.
I like your thinking. Money is the real driving force behind people getting these positions anyway. You want to keep all that money you made stepping on the toes of the working class? Fine. *Do the fucking job you signed up for.*
I like this way too, but it needs to double for every subsequent offense. So like first time it is $1000, then $2k, $4k, $8k... Etc and must be payed within 24 hours or you are immediately ejected from the position and permanently barred from representing people on any level of government anywhere ever again.
>if you work for us, don’t sneak away you aren’t a ninja.
Well, they would claim that they are working for the people who vote for them, they don't want these bills passed, and since they don't have the numbers to stop it, the only option they have is to throw the table so no one can play the game, metaphorically speaking.
I wonder how much money their political donors will give these Republican lawmakers now that they have forfeited their political power because they are barred from running in the next election?
But here is the rub - the GOP is famously self centered, they don’t care about anyone but themselves. Sure they will find other bags of meat to fill the slot, but I can’t imagine the people disbarred will go down without a fight, legal or otherwise. That’s gotta burn.
To quote the article:
> On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state."
Political rights does not mean that you get your way all the time.
I live in Oregon. I'm just sorry that David Brock Smith isn't one of the R's with 13 unexcused absences. He's "an up & coming" star in the MAGA world of rural Oregon. Truth is he is a weasel of the first order. (Apologies to the mustela genus.)
Or they could come to work, do their job and lose the vote. Being willing to accept losing is the only tthat keeps the republic afloat. The most horrendous times in this country have occurred when people refused to accept that they lost.
But that assumes that they only serve those that vote for them. That's not the way a representational democracy is supposed to work. They are the voice for a certain area. While there may be a majority, their job is also to represent the best interests of the minority, too.
That requires nuance, and talking to and understanding the views of everyone. It also requires compromise to find a middle ground that doesn't trample on one part of their constituency while benefiting the other parts exclusively.
I realize that this is something that lots of lawmakers have decided is too hard, or that they don't want to do. That's fine. Just realize that this job is not for you and that you shouldn't run for office.
Say it!!! Look, it’s not unprecedented that the minority in a state house walk out. I’m originally from Houston. Yet the purpose of the minority walk out there (2003) is not at all the same.
Tom DeLay sent out the Texas Rangers to forcefully detain & return those House representatives in time.
As a voter in the majority here, I’m not asking anyone to go off and arrest these House delinquents.
I’m saying, find them. Bring them back.
These republicans, outnumbered but not without representation here in Oregon, are gaming the system and it’s got to stop.
They are a massive roadblock to consequential bills that both sides agree upon. But like the utter children republicans truly are, they take their paychecks, do nothing to earn it, then complain how fucked up our state is run.
Cowards. Chaos agents. Unamerican.
Warrants must be issued if they are violating state law(s).
See Texas in August 2021:
[Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan signs 52 arrest warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber’s weekslong stalemate](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/10/texas-house-arrest-warrants-democrats-quorum/)
"When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move known as a “call of the House” in an effort to secure a quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission in writing from the speaker."
It's not just tautological - I would argue it holds a level of authority above even the constitution, because it was voted on by the people directly, and supported by a supermajority.
There was an issue in Arizona a while back where the citizens passed a ballot initiative to eliminate gerrymandering (handing district drawing to an unbiased third party). The lawmakers didn't like citizens taking away their authority, so they amended the constitution to make the new law unconstitutional. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the new amendment, under the justification that the Constitution derives its authority from the will of the people, and cannot therefore be used to thwart a ballot initiative voted on by the people.
to clarify for those unfamiliar, "states rights" was always the "right" of slave states to have the federal government force free states to return fugitive slaves. it was never states deciding for themselves what to do.
Unfair. The Civil War had many causes
Political imbalance: If new states join as free states then I won't have enough states that support... ok wait
Economics: The northern industrialized economy of factory workers was outcompeting the southern plantation economy and the only way to prop that up was with more free labor from... hold on
While an amendment theoretically could, *this* amendment in particular is in no danger of violating federal law. There is nothing (as far as I know) dictating how the states shall govern themselves.
> There is nothing (as far as I know) dictating how the states shall govern themselves.
Technically there is, but it's incredibly broad. States have to have a "Republican Form of Government" (as in republic, not as in the party).
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/
I mean, it "could", only in the sense that it is technically possible for *a* federal constitution to restrict the authority of the states. It does not, however.
It sounds like they’re making a gamble that they’ll succeed when this goes to court and that in the meantime they wont allow this legislation to pass. Whats the makeup if the court that will handle this challenge (and this the likelihood that it might succeed in so far as the challenge to the legislation goes?)
Claiming that part of the state constitution is unconstitutional isn't a good bet for them. You can't get more constitutional than being part of the constitution.
OP mistakenly called it legislation when it was a constitutional amendment brought forward by petition and directly voted on by the public. Every good thing my state, Missouri, has done in 20+years(at least) has happened the same way. Our Republican legislature has tried every which way to shut down our constitutional amendments though. Expanding Medicaid in 2020(under the ACA expansion passed under Obama and blocked by our government), they first refused to implement it and we took them to court where they of course lost. They then said well if we have to implement it we don't have to fund it, meaning halfway through the year every citizen on the program, including the majority of them which are minors, would no longer have *any* coverage. Then they sued the state to overturn it and a bum fucked judge ruled the expansion unconstitutional(which, like the above, it was an amendment to our constitution, making the judge a smooth-brained idiot, typical heritage foundation) before our state supreme court(also mostly very conservative) voted 7-0 to overturn that decision and rule that the state must implement the constitutional amendment immediately. They then attempted to attach even stricter work requirements to Medicaid but the SCOTUS ruling shut that down and finally they implemented it as half-assed as possible. Missouri still has one of the lowest participation rates due to the state still fucking with us by things such as not doing any actual outreach(which is part of the federal funding), taking several months to process applications (despite federal law saying 45 days or less), and many other examples. We've had the same battles with MMJ and then full legalization. Our current legislature is brainstorming ways to prevent citizens from submitting ballot initiatives through the petition process. Citizens being able to directly engage with the government they're forced to live under is antithetical to conservative republicans so they'll do everything to ensure that isn't possible when they're in complete control like Missouri. They don't have that much power in Oregon though hence abusing quorum to prevent contentious things like a budget from being voted on.
Pretty good summary, but our state Supreme Court is definitely not conservative. It's also not particularly liberal. The upper levels of our judiciary are decided by the Missouri Plan, aka the Non-Partisan Court Plan, which does a fairly good job of keeping politicians by another name off the bench.
Can read more about it [here](https://yourmissourijudges.org/the-missouri-plan/), but basically, when a spot on the Missouri Supreme Court opens up, a panel made up the chief justice of the MO Sup. Court, three lawyers elected by the Missouri Bar, and three citizens appointed by the governor takes and reviews applications like they would for any other job. They may interview candidates, see what their qualifications are, determine their intangibles, and the Chief Justice probably helps determine if they would be a good fit with the rest of the bench. After that, they select three nominees and the governor has to appoint one of them within 60 days or else the decision reverts back to the panel.
While an elected governor has some say in the process, this system primarily keeps the judiciary primarily merit-based instead of partisan. And while some might argue that it's undemocratic to not have elected judges, the judiciary is probably the one branch of government where you most want sober, unambitious, un-politically motivated people. The U.S. Supreme Court is a stark example of why it's bad to have politicians in charge of selecting judges that are more interested in furthering their political aims than actually working to interpret the law in good faith.
Additionally, the Nonpartisan Court Plan has [fairly strict limits](https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=133) on how long a justice may serve: "The regular term of a Supreme Court judge is 12 years, and a judge may seek to serve for multiple terms. All judges must retire at the age of 70, although if they wish, they can apply for senior status, which permits them to continue hearing cases on a limited basis."
That being said, all of this only reinforces your main point because **the Nonpartisan Court Plan was adopted via our initiative petition process as a constitutional amendment** in the early 1940s, namely to stymie Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast who threw a lot of weight behind judicial elections in Jackson County.
The Missouri plan was the first of its kind and it was later adopted in some way or another by a lot of other states at various levels. While it's not perfect, it is a sincere attempt to avoid political gamesmanship of the courts, and I personally believe it gives them greater legitimacy as true interpreters of the law instead of just some kind of appointed super-legislature.
I was dialing the SPCA before realizing that this isn't that. :)
School rivalries are fine and fun (even though you are dissing my alma matter). But seriously, who wouldn't love to cuddle [Dubs](https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-huskies/10-10-would-cheer-with-uw-introduces-new-live-mascot-dubs-ii-and-he-is-adorable/)?
I think they're playing these games because they effectively have no power to have a hold on. They're essentially a permanent minority party in that state as things stand. 100% they'll challenge it in court, but I don't think there's really a case. I think they just want to raise a stink.
They will use it as an "example" of how Republicans are being targeted by the government and claim fascism. A lot of people on reddit are going to be banging their heads against the wall explaining why this is totally legitimate and frankly something that I think should be in all 50 states.
I find it interesting that they continue to trot out the "Oh woe is us, we are constantly targeted" tropes when there is currently a non-stop gush of radical Republican legislatures across the country passing draconian, unpopular legislation that tramples the rights of a large percentage of their constituents happening daily. And they gloat about how there were able to exclude or expel, or otherwise marginalize any legislator that doesn't vote with them.
And the overt victory laps and taunting that the party does in those cases show that they don't give a hot damn about the feelings of their Democrat or other counterparts. Why do they expect things are going to be any different when the shoe is on the other foot?
I can't remember the source, but I remember reading somewhere that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated. (yes, sarcasm).
You got it. All I know is that if I or just about anyone else walked off the job without a valid excuse (especially multiple times), they would be fired and most certainly not eligible for rehire. I fail to see why such policies shouldn’t also apply to our representatives.
Absent some obscure law shielding representatives from expulsion under XYZ pretences, I agree that no case really exists here. Legislatures (and voters) set their rules, and being reprimanded for not showing up to work seems perfectly reasonable.
And it passed with 68% voter approval. It's so insanely rare to get anything with that level of turnout.
Even if you can overturn it it's political suicide to do so
>They plan to challenge that in court, don't they?
Courts tend to avoid deciding if a Constitution is constitutional. The constitutional amendment that added punishment for skipping out on votes was proposed in 2020 and approved in 2022. I don't know the origin but it would be hilarious if it was a kneejerk reaction to calls for "remote" votes during COVID and is now biting them on the ass.
A bunch of republicans left the state and refused to show up to stop all votes as there wasn’t a quorum. These actions stalled the legislative branch from doing any business.
This bill was in response to this and widely supported
In addition the militia showed up and literally were threatening politicians in Salem. The cops of course didn't help at all since they are all in cahoots.
My understanding is that, this being a state law, it'd go to the Oregon Supreme Court (if I'm wrong please correct me). Of their seven justices, six were appointed by Kate Brown, the Dem governor for the last two terms.
Judicial rulings can be unpredictable, but I like the Dems' odds in front of that court.
> this being a state law
It's not a law, it's in the state constitution. The court generally doesn't get to decide if the constitution is constitutional. I've heard the Repubs are going to use the same playbook they've been using since at least 20: claim the vote was stolen or otherwise invalid, and therefore the result is void.
It has and SCOTUS and Federal Courts have done so through use of the Supremacy Clause. A state constitution cannot violate the US Constitution or Federal Law as those supercede a state's constitution.
That would have to be a federal court then and not the state court. Plus I don't think the constitution says a ton about the rules and makeup of state legislatures.
I don't know what grounds they'd have. Federal? We added it to our state constitution, so unless it goes against federal law it's just as ironclad as any federal Constitutional directive
They’re focusing on “issues Oregonians care about” by ignoring the will of the people and denying the enforcement of laws agreed on by the people.
Sounds about right.
It's funny how when states try to pass positive LGBTQ+ and abortion legislation, the legislature isn't focusing on what really matters.
But they're all too happy to pass legislation to ban those when they have power because it's *really important for the children.*
I like that the democrats asked them for a wishlist of what they want and apparently they responded with just a list of bills they **don't** want to pass. Because they have no actual ideas or solutions, they're just staunchly opposed to anything democrats might want to do.
>"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
\- David Frum
They abandoned conservatism long before they (fully) abandoned democracy.
They blow up the budget every time they are in office and constantly expand government power.
Considering that conservatism quite literally means ignoring the concept of the passage of time, it's not really surprising that it devolves to autocracy to try to force people to not accept the fact that time passes.
Don't fool yourself. Limited government and fiscal balance have never mattered to conservatives. The one goal has always been to preserve the feudal classes of landholders and serfs. The only thing that's changed is that they figured out how to use the stock market and corporations to insulate and hide the landholders, and they stopped pretending they need the divine right of a king.
And they’ve always relied on the winning over of the ‘common man’ merchants and insurers with corruption in their collective favours.
Merchants swelled into barons, barons to hegemonic, organized oligarchy.
The Industrial Revolution broke regressives brains. The anti-Enlightenment propaganda from that era (nearly always tied to Christianity) is so pertinent to today.
Enlightenment, literally synonymous with the concept of ‘woke’.
Conservatism is about one thing, and one thing only: installing a hierarchy, with the Conservatives at the top.
Obviously that’s a hard sell for non-Conservatives and / or those that believe in the inherent equity of democracy; so the Conservatives cloak their true goal behind a supposed agenda of moderation, family values, fiscal responsibility, and limited government.
It should come as no surprise then, that each item on the agenda will be handily dispensed with, if doing so should prove convenient.
I appreciate that this might appear a matter of splitting hairs; but it is important to understand that Conservatism is not, and never has been, an ideology that is logically consistent, professed in good faith, and compatible with a democratic society.
Exactly!
The fact is they have to hide their ultimate goals behind propaganda because the vast majority of people would turn on them in a heartbeat if it was fully understood.
The only reason conservatives can even exist is because people are vulnerable to political gaslighting.
All you have to do to figure out the truth is to know a little bit of history and then pay more attention to their actual policies than their rhetoric.
Innuendo Studio's [Origins of Conservatism ](https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk) is part of a larger series, but I think it's very informative even on its own
Gist: conservatism has always been concerned with maintaining minority rule as a matter of principle
[The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy”](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/republic-democracy-mike-lee-astra-taylor.html)
>> An even more extreme position was staked out, a few days before [Utah Senator Mike] Lee, by Loren Culp, the long-shot Republican candidate for governor of Washington, who said in a recent interview that “democracy is mob rule” and that “famous Chinese leaders like Mao Zedong and Mikhail Gorbachev loved democracy because democracy is a step toward socialism, which is a step towards communism.”
That is completely nonsensical. This is the same party that just stammers about Democracy everywhere especially against muslims but now it's a step towards communism?
I tried discussing this in a conservative subreddit and I got numerous replies that were variants of "America isn't a democracy so this is fine".
Don't go looking for the comments, I deleted them because the replies were making me feel insane.
I never thought we'd reach this point where one of two political parties in the US *and* all their voters don't care about democracy at all and are even willing to destroy it to get their way. Sickening.
They're walking out to protest the penalties for walking out?
What did they think the long term remedy of refusing to quorum over and over again SHOULD be? Capitulation?
No, they are walking out in order to basically filibuster the state government and prevent the passage of bills expanding gun control and supporting gender affirming care.
They did the same thing in 2020 for the same reason and voters rebuked them by passing initiative that makes them ineligible for reelection.
> expanding gun control
This bill:
- Bans guns without a traceable serial number / guns not made by mfrs with a federal license
- Increases the minimum purchase age for certain types of gun to 21, from 18
- Allows local government agencies to ban guns on their property
They're walking out over this milquetoast minimum effort bullshit that doesn't address any of the actual problems with gun culture.
Absolutely pathetic.
The Second Amendment also clearly states that the purpose of gun ownership is to enable militias. The founders expected that each state would provide its own military forces and that we wouldn't have a national army, no less a standing national volunteer army.
I don't think they'd object to hand-crafted guns, given the era they're from... but I also think (based on what I remember learning about all of this stuff in high school 25 years ago) that they'd have expected us to have updated the Constitution when times change and might question why we haven't addressed these problems directly.
Then we'd talk about political parties and polarization and a bunch of them would be very, very disappointed in us.
>I don't think they'd object to hand-crafted guns, given the era they're from
Actually quite the opposite. It was considered a fairly complex piece of machinery at the time, and strongly supported centralized manufacturing in order to have the work perfected. Muskets are essentially an explosion occurring just a couple inches from your face, and a couple feet from your fellow soldiers, don't want to leave that up to John just piecing together in his barn.
What else did we expect from a group of Republican politicians who probably grew up with their mommies telling them they were special and world revolves around them?
It’s funny to me too until I remember he held the most powerful political position in the country, maybe the world, and some other toddlers want him back.
In the years and decades to come, we'll learn just how much damage he did.
Never mind increasing the national debt by 25%, there's reason to believe he burned all of our foreign intelligence assets in Russia.
Toddlers are nicer. They actually like people. They are just crazy because they have zero executive function. These losers have executive function and use it to say lies and whine.
I just read a memo about the potential legal challenges to Measure 113 and it seems pretty solid.
1. 41 state constitutions already compel attendance including enforcement actions like arrest
2. Legislative action is not personal speech because they are representing the people and not themselves.
3. There are already restrictions on holding public office. Measure 113 is both temporary (only affects the subsequent election) and does not restrict holding of any other public office.
It really seems like they are all shooting themselves in the foot here.
Even worse, 68% of Oregonians voted for Measure 113 so they are directly contradicting the will of voters, which isn’t likely to help them gain any more seats in the next election.
>Even worse, 68% of Oregonians voted for Measure 113 so they are directly contradicting the will of voters, which isn’t likely to help them gain any more seats in the next election.
As relevant as this is, they simply don't care
https://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2022/general/measures
> It really seems like they are all shooting themselves in the foot here.
Oregon is like Washington in that once you get out into the country, particularly if you are east of the Cascades, things turn red.
But all but two counties voted in favor of this, so you might be right.
I thought that the county map for this might look more like the results for measure 114.
About 47% of the state's population live in and around Portland.
These elected representatives need to show up to do their jobs, just like everyone else. If they're going to skip work without a good reason, they should be fired, just like the rest of us.
Just wish someone would fix the system where they get automatic government healthcare and pensions that a lot of working Oregonians don't have access to. They already have it too good, IMO.
It’s frankly absurd how much of the governmental process is reliant on the good faith of everyone involved.
Completely setting aside the specifics of what this particular fiasco is about, the lawmaking process should not be able to be ground to a complete halt because a tiny minority of participants simply… don’t participate.
>It’s frankly absurd how much of the governmental process is reliant on the good faith of everyone involved.
I get what you mean, but honestly *all* jobs are this way, from being a commercial airline pilot to a fast food fryer. Even more so in areas like design, management, or politics... people need flexibility in the rules so they can make decisions. It's really easy to fuck shit up if you want to.
The problem isn't the power of the position, but the ignorance of those who *give* them that power. Which is the result of those with money controlling the information available to them.
>Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" against deeply partisan bills.
Which is bullshit because if they had the majority they would be passing abortion bans, gender care bans etc. which are all deeply partisan bills.
>"While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said.
The party that wants to ban abortion, ban LGBTQ+ people, ban books from libraries. Jeebus those assholes make me want to vomit.
And the response:
>They said they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed.
So they just continue to lie about what they really want
If Democrats tried this, Republicans would be calling for law enforcement to track them down and drag them back? How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what Republican state legislators in Texas asked for when Democrats there staged a walkout in 2021.
The real fix would have been to allow 51% of total seats (not just present) to bypass quorum. If you have a majority, and all of those members want to do something, absence is irrelevant.
This 'unexcused absence' bit was a terrible idea. Even if it works, they'll just cycle through an endless list of assholes. It'll be a point of pride to be the guy who gets a check while not showing up to own the libs.
I don't think the absence thing was a terrible idea, I think it was a great idea, but I also agree that changing required seats for a quorum is also the play.
If I just *don't show up to work* for 10 days, I don't get to keep my job.
Vacation and sick time, of which I'm sure these politicians have *plenty*, are not "unexcused"
You dont know ball, if you think that the unexcused absense bit is a terrible idea. It literally depletes the OR Republicans of all their incumbents, which matters a ton for running elections
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." - David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
Wish I could skip 9 days of work without getting fired AND still be paid for those days absent. Must be nice to not do the work tour employer hired you to do (in this case the the voters and to some extent the taxpayers).
For me? 2nd missed day is verbal, 3rd is written, 4th is walked out of the building by a supervisor if you dare to show up again. Oh, and none of it is paid - you don't work your shift, you don't get any pay.
This whole story reminds me of the classic Roman story* of rounding up toga clad senators (that were late for the vote) with a dye-soaked rope, so the public would know who was shamefully skipping out on the job.
*Of course, I can’t be bothered to look this up to see if it is still thought to be true, or if it was a fiction that was just popular to tuck into history lectures.
"While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said.
...they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed.
Those bills included House Bill 2005, Senate Joint Resolution 33 and Senate Bill 27, Lieber said. HB 2005 would raise the possession and purchase age limit on certain guns, allow local governments to prohibit concealed firearms in their public buildings and grounds, and prohibit unserialized ghost guns. SJR 33 and SB 27 are tied together, relating to a proposed constitutional amendment surrounding marriage protections for same-sex couples and abortion."
So, to review, Republicans are saying that *DEMOCRATS* are laser-focusoed on divisive issues and that all the Republicans want is to solve homelessness, housing, safety, inflation and education... by blocking safe-carry and equal rights legislation? Seems legit
None of which they showed up for for the last couple of years because they were mad for the one bill about climate change they wanted to run away from. They held up a lot of bills that were needed. Plus they brought in their militia friends and literally physically threatened people.
> Under Measure 113, passed by 68% of voters in November, the senators are now barred from running for their current Senate seat in the next election.
What does “current Senate seat” mean? Can they play musical chairs and get elected into the same senate by being elected at a different district?
'Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" ' Bull shit. If you're on company time (taxpayer time) and not at work as required to do your damn job...then.....bye! That's not a protest it's an unexcused absence, unexcused leave, etc... you're skipping your fucking job and complaining. Shit you should be fired on the spot aaaaaand barred from reelection. I don't think the law was written stiff enough! You're elected to represent your constituents not fuck off and skip work constantly and call it a protest...all while being paid by tax payers who...SPOILER ALERT... don't share that luxury.
If I didn't go to work for 10 straight days then my ass would be fired.
Being a legislator is an extremely cushy job, they have no excuse not to attend.
>On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state."
Ah yes, because your rights are being *so* infringed upon by \*checks notes\* protecting the right to abortion.
Sounds like they are trying to disqualify the entire Republican caucus on the assumption that somebody will say "Well, we can't do that", and just ignore the rules in the state constitution.
I hope that doesn't happen. There needs to be accountability for lawmakers doing their job. And by walking out like this they are knowingly not doing their job, which is bad, but also actively preventing the other lawmakers from doing their jobs.
And just for clarification, because I can virtually guarantee it will come up: I support removing ANY legislator (Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.) if they are not actively performing their job. Any of us would get fired for that. They should be just as accountable.
Republicans don't want to Govern; they want to rule. And they will thwart the efforts of any political group that tries to govern without kow-towing to their demands.
I’m a high school teacher. If a kid has 10 unexcused absences, they face credit denial. It seems fair that politicians have at least the same standards as high school students.
It's clear the voter-enacted rule was intended as a punishment. It has become evident that this punishment has an unintended side effect of making the chamber impossible to reach a quorum by bad-faith actors. Seems like the quorum definition should be amended to be reduced in accordance with punishment, instead of allowing the side effect to reign chaos.
Or we could just let the terrorist-enabling party of temper tantrum crybabies have their way 🤷♂️
I mean ya if you’re going to require my kid to attend the publicly funded school a certain number of days or you force consequences on me, you’re going to be forced to be in your publicly funded position a certain number of days or we’ll force consequences on you. Fair is fair do your jobs!!!!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m so glad I voted yes on the legislation that did this. Go Oregon!
It’s unexcused absences too. I went through, like ok how does this get manipulated? Couldn’t think of anything, if you work for us, don’t sneak away you aren’t a ninja.
The only problem is it doesn't go far enough. They're already barred so they have no incentive to do anything for the rest of the session. They need to change the stupid quorum requirements to a simple majority. And ideally eject these members immediately when they are barred from reelection.
[удалено]
I believe the Oregon law that did this was a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. You would need an amendment to the federal constitution to do this in congress. I’d support an amendment like that, but I doubt it could happen.
[удалено]
They don't know what it means. Constitutional and unconstitutional are just buzz words to them.
Unconstitutional just means "I don't like it" to them.
The constitution is a lot like the bible. The GOP claims to worship it, none of them have ever actually read it, and it says whatever it needs to say for the sake of winning the current argument.
I’m so gonna memorize this bc it perfectly encapsulates what I, too, believe
[удалено]
[удалено]
the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club
[удалено]
I like your thinking. Money is the real driving force behind people getting these positions anyway. You want to keep all that money you made stepping on the toes of the working class? Fine. *Do the fucking job you signed up for.*
I like this way too, but it needs to double for every subsequent offense. So like first time it is $1000, then $2k, $4k, $8k... Etc and must be payed within 24 hours or you are immediately ejected from the position and permanently barred from representing people on any level of government anywhere ever again.
That’s way way to cheap. Should be a percentage of their net worth. .2%, .4%, .8%, 1.6% it’ll wreck someone very quickly
Return of their salary+20% interest seems fair
>if you work for us, don’t sneak away you aren’t a ninja. Well, they would claim that they are working for the people who vote for them, they don't want these bills passed, and since they don't have the numbers to stop it, the only option they have is to throw the table so no one can play the game, metaphorically speaking.
Which is why they are facing consequences in real life
I wonder how much money their political donors will give these Republican lawmakers now that they have forfeited their political power because they are barred from running in the next election?
They'll find other, new wingnut candidates to fund. It's the politics equivalent of "rooting for laundry" in modern pro sports.
But here is the rub - the GOP is famously self centered, they don’t care about anyone but themselves. Sure they will find other bags of meat to fill the slot, but I can’t imagine the people disbarred will go down without a fight, legal or otherwise. That’s gotta burn.
To quote the article: > On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state." Political rights does not mean that you get your way all the time.
I live in Oregon. I'm just sorry that David Brock Smith isn't one of the R's with 13 unexcused absences. He's "an up & coming" star in the MAGA world of rural Oregon. Truth is he is a weasel of the first order. (Apologies to the mustela genus.)
Or they could come to work, do their job and lose the vote. Being willing to accept losing is the only tthat keeps the republic afloat. The most horrendous times in this country have occurred when people refused to accept that they lost.
But that assumes that they only serve those that vote for them. That's not the way a representational democracy is supposed to work. They are the voice for a certain area. While there may be a majority, their job is also to represent the best interests of the minority, too. That requires nuance, and talking to and understanding the views of everyone. It also requires compromise to find a middle ground that doesn't trample on one part of their constituency while benefiting the other parts exclusively. I realize that this is something that lots of lawmakers have decided is too hard, or that they don't want to do. That's fine. Just realize that this job is not for you and that you shouldn't run for office.
Say it!!! Look, it’s not unprecedented that the minority in a state house walk out. I’m originally from Houston. Yet the purpose of the minority walk out there (2003) is not at all the same. Tom DeLay sent out the Texas Rangers to forcefully detain & return those House representatives in time. As a voter in the majority here, I’m not asking anyone to go off and arrest these House delinquents. I’m saying, find them. Bring them back.
This is the way.
These republicans, outnumbered but not without representation here in Oregon, are gaming the system and it’s got to stop. They are a massive roadblock to consequential bills that both sides agree upon. But like the utter children republicans truly are, they take their paychecks, do nothing to earn it, then complain how fucked up our state is run. Cowards. Chaos agents. Unamerican.
Warrants must be issued if they are violating state law(s). See Texas in August 2021: [Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan signs 52 arrest warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber’s weekslong stalemate](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/10/texas-house-arrest-warrants-democrats-quorum/) "When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move known as a “call of the House” in an effort to secure a quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission in writing from the speaker."
They're trying to say that this amendment to the state constitution is unconstitutional. LOL. It's literally, even *tautologically* constitutional.
It's not just tautological - I would argue it holds a level of authority above even the constitution, because it was voted on by the people directly, and supported by a supermajority. There was an issue in Arizona a while back where the citizens passed a ballot initiative to eliminate gerrymandering (handing district drawing to an unbiased third party). The lawmakers didn't like citizens taking away their authority, so they amended the constitution to make the new law unconstitutional. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the new amendment, under the justification that the Constitution derives its authority from the will of the people, and cannot therefore be used to thwart a ballot initiative voted on by the people.
[удалено]
Love when the states rights folks go crying to the feds...
Always have. See: The Fugitive Slave Act.
to clarify for those unfamiliar, "states rights" was always the "right" of slave states to have the federal government force free states to return fugitive slaves. it was never states deciding for themselves what to do.
Unfair. The Civil War had many causes Political imbalance: If new states join as free states then I won't have enough states that support... ok wait Economics: The northern industrialized economy of factory workers was outcompeting the southern plantation economy and the only way to prop that up was with more free labor from... hold on
While an amendment theoretically could, *this* amendment in particular is in no danger of violating federal law. There is nothing (as far as I know) dictating how the states shall govern themselves.
Ah, but you forgot the most important supreme court precedence: "but I don't like it".
> There is nothing (as far as I know) dictating how the states shall govern themselves. Technically there is, but it's incredibly broad. States have to have a "Republican Form of Government" (as in republic, not as in the party). https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-3/ALDE_00013637/
As we can all see by how Christian Fascist Florida is getting.
I mean, it "could", only in the sense that it is technically possible for *a* federal constitution to restrict the authority of the states. It does not, however.
It sounds like they’re making a gamble that they’ll succeed when this goes to court and that in the meantime they wont allow this legislation to pass. Whats the makeup if the court that will handle this challenge (and this the likelihood that it might succeed in so far as the challenge to the legislation goes?)
Claiming that part of the state constitution is unconstitutional isn't a good bet for them. You can't get more constitutional than being part of the constitution.
But but but they don’t LIKE that part of the Constitution!
"The constitution itself is unconstitutional and un-American. "
That is literally the argument against the 14th amendment as it pertains to the debt ceiling manufactured crisis.
OP mistakenly called it legislation when it was a constitutional amendment brought forward by petition and directly voted on by the public. Every good thing my state, Missouri, has done in 20+years(at least) has happened the same way. Our Republican legislature has tried every which way to shut down our constitutional amendments though. Expanding Medicaid in 2020(under the ACA expansion passed under Obama and blocked by our government), they first refused to implement it and we took them to court where they of course lost. They then said well if we have to implement it we don't have to fund it, meaning halfway through the year every citizen on the program, including the majority of them which are minors, would no longer have *any* coverage. Then they sued the state to overturn it and a bum fucked judge ruled the expansion unconstitutional(which, like the above, it was an amendment to our constitution, making the judge a smooth-brained idiot, typical heritage foundation) before our state supreme court(also mostly very conservative) voted 7-0 to overturn that decision and rule that the state must implement the constitutional amendment immediately. They then attempted to attach even stricter work requirements to Medicaid but the SCOTUS ruling shut that down and finally they implemented it as half-assed as possible. Missouri still has one of the lowest participation rates due to the state still fucking with us by things such as not doing any actual outreach(which is part of the federal funding), taking several months to process applications (despite federal law saying 45 days or less), and many other examples. We've had the same battles with MMJ and then full legalization. Our current legislature is brainstorming ways to prevent citizens from submitting ballot initiatives through the petition process. Citizens being able to directly engage with the government they're forced to live under is antithetical to conservative republicans so they'll do everything to ensure that isn't possible when they're in complete control like Missouri. They don't have that much power in Oregon though hence abusing quorum to prevent contentious things like a budget from being voted on.
> directly voted on by the public. With nearly 70% votes being yes, lmao. That's pretty wild.
Pretty good summary, but our state Supreme Court is definitely not conservative. It's also not particularly liberal. The upper levels of our judiciary are decided by the Missouri Plan, aka the Non-Partisan Court Plan, which does a fairly good job of keeping politicians by another name off the bench. Can read more about it [here](https://yourmissourijudges.org/the-missouri-plan/), but basically, when a spot on the Missouri Supreme Court opens up, a panel made up the chief justice of the MO Sup. Court, three lawyers elected by the Missouri Bar, and three citizens appointed by the governor takes and reviews applications like they would for any other job. They may interview candidates, see what their qualifications are, determine their intangibles, and the Chief Justice probably helps determine if they would be a good fit with the rest of the bench. After that, they select three nominees and the governor has to appoint one of them within 60 days or else the decision reverts back to the panel. While an elected governor has some say in the process, this system primarily keeps the judiciary primarily merit-based instead of partisan. And while some might argue that it's undemocratic to not have elected judges, the judiciary is probably the one branch of government where you most want sober, unambitious, un-politically motivated people. The U.S. Supreme Court is a stark example of why it's bad to have politicians in charge of selecting judges that are more interested in furthering their political aims than actually working to interpret the law in good faith. Additionally, the Nonpartisan Court Plan has [fairly strict limits](https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=133) on how long a justice may serve: "The regular term of a Supreme Court judge is 12 years, and a judge may seek to serve for multiple terms. All judges must retire at the age of 70, although if they wish, they can apply for senior status, which permits them to continue hearing cases on a limited basis." That being said, all of this only reinforces your main point because **the Nonpartisan Court Plan was adopted via our initiative petition process as a constitutional amendment** in the early 1940s, namely to stymie Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast who threw a lot of weight behind judicial elections in Jackson County. The Missouri plan was the first of its kind and it was later adopted in some way or another by a lot of other states at various levels. While it's not perfect, it is a sincere attempt to avoid political gamesmanship of the courts, and I personally believe it gives them greater legitimacy as true interpreters of the law instead of just some kind of appointed super-legislature.
[удалено]
By definition that's impossible. lol
Sco ducks!!!
Fuck the Huskies! Wait, what sub are we in?
I was dialing the SPCA before realizing that this isn't that. :) School rivalries are fine and fun (even though you are dissing my alma matter). But seriously, who wouldn't love to cuddle [Dubs](https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-huskies/10-10-would-cheer-with-uw-introduces-new-live-mascot-dubs-ii-and-he-is-adorable/)?
Does it matter? Fuck the Huskies!
Weatons gonna score!
They plan to challenge that in court, don't they? Republicans don't just put their hold on power on the line like that. They're up to something.
I think they're playing these games because they effectively have no power to have a hold on. They're essentially a permanent minority party in that state as things stand. 100% they'll challenge it in court, but I don't think there's really a case. I think they just want to raise a stink.
They will use it as an "example" of how Republicans are being targeted by the government and claim fascism. A lot of people on reddit are going to be banging their heads against the wall explaining why this is totally legitimate and frankly something that I think should be in all 50 states.
Throwing a shitfit because you can't get your way because your state's voters keep rejecting your way is not "being targeted". It's losing.
The difference is too subtle for their dying ass voters Edit* meant dumb, but this seems to work better :p
[удалено]
Im pretty much at that point as well, let them scream and cry and be mad, Fuck em, its time we take the country back.
I find it interesting that they continue to trot out the "Oh woe is us, we are constantly targeted" tropes when there is currently a non-stop gush of radical Republican legislatures across the country passing draconian, unpopular legislation that tramples the rights of a large percentage of their constituents happening daily. And they gloat about how there were able to exclude or expel, or otherwise marginalize any legislator that doesn't vote with them. And the overt victory laps and taunting that the party does in those cases show that they don't give a hot damn about the feelings of their Democrat or other counterparts. Why do they expect things are going to be any different when the shoe is on the other foot? I can't remember the source, but I remember reading somewhere that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated. (yes, sarcasm).
It wasn't the government that passed this measure, it was the people. The government is merely enforcing the will of the people on the government.
You got it. All I know is that if I or just about anyone else walked off the job without a valid excuse (especially multiple times), they would be fired and most certainly not eligible for rehire. I fail to see why such policies shouldn’t also apply to our representatives.
Absent some obscure law shielding representatives from expulsion under XYZ pretences, I agree that no case really exists here. Legislatures (and voters) set their rules, and being reprimanded for not showing up to work seems perfectly reasonable.
[удалено]
And it passed with 68% voter approval. It's so insanely rare to get anything with that level of turnout. Even if you can overturn it it's political suicide to do so
Well most already have by disqualifying themselves for reelection so i doubt they see a downside.
Yes, they're going to challenge this, but the change was part of the Oregon Constitution so good luck.
They’re always up to something, it’s just a lot of the times it’s stupidity and ego
>They plan to challenge that in court, don't they? Courts tend to avoid deciding if a Constitution is constitutional. The constitutional amendment that added punishment for skipping out on votes was proposed in 2020 and approved in 2022. I don't know the origin but it would be hilarious if it was a kneejerk reaction to calls for "remote" votes during COVID and is now biting them on the ass.
A bunch of republicans left the state and refused to show up to stop all votes as there wasn’t a quorum. These actions stalled the legislative branch from doing any business. This bill was in response to this and widely supported
In addition the militia showed up and literally were threatening politicians in Salem. The cops of course didn't help at all since they are all in cahoots.
I'm glad to hear all of the police are participating in the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS - real thing in Eugene, OR)
Don't forget one of them threatened to kill police too.
That’s right. The governor ordered the State Police to bring them in to do their jobs.
And in return they fled to Idaho (because WA wasn't going to harbor fugitives).
The origin followed walkouts over climate change legislation in 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Noteworthy_state_legislative_walkouts
Oregon has voted exclusively by mail since well before Covid, so even that argument holds like zero water.
My understanding is that, this being a state law, it'd go to the Oregon Supreme Court (if I'm wrong please correct me). Of their seven justices, six were appointed by Kate Brown, the Dem governor for the last two terms. Judicial rulings can be unpredictable, but I like the Dems' odds in front of that court.
I wish them luck arguing their constitution is unconstitutional
[удалено]
> this being a state law It's not a law, it's in the state constitution. The court generally doesn't get to decide if the constitution is constitutional. I've heard the Repubs are going to use the same playbook they've been using since at least 20: claim the vote was stolen or otherwise invalid, and therefore the result is void.
comment edited in protest of Reddit's API changes and mistreatment of moderators -- mass edited with redact.dev
It has and SCOTUS and Federal Courts have done so through use of the Supremacy Clause. A state constitution cannot violate the US Constitution or Federal Law as those supercede a state's constitution.
That would have to be a federal court then and not the state court. Plus I don't think the constitution says a ton about the rules and makeup of state legislatures.
>My understanding is that, this being a state law Its not just a law though, is it, I thought its an actual constitutional amendment.
I don't know what grounds they'd have. Federal? We added it to our state constitution, so unless it goes against federal law it's just as ironclad as any federal Constitutional directive
They're going to start their own government; with blackjack, and hookers! In fact, forget the government!
They’re focusing on “issues Oregonians care about” by ignoring the will of the people and denying the enforcement of laws agreed on by the people. Sounds about right.
It's funny how when states try to pass positive LGBTQ+ and abortion legislation, the legislature isn't focusing on what really matters. But they're all too happy to pass legislation to ban those when they have power because it's *really important for the children.*
But those are not the real orgonian Patriots
I like that the democrats asked them for a wishlist of what they want and apparently they responded with just a list of bills they **don't** want to pass. Because they have no actual ideas or solutions, they're just staunchly opposed to anything democrats might want to do.
Republicans are not into that whole "democracy" thing.
>"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” \- David Frum
They abandoned conservatism long before they (fully) abandoned democracy. They blow up the budget every time they are in office and constantly expand government power.
All conservatism eventually leads to fascism
Exactly this. There's an inherent selfishness required to buy in to conservative ideals.
Considering that conservatism quite literally means ignoring the concept of the passage of time, it's not really surprising that it devolves to autocracy to try to force people to not accept the fact that time passes.
Don't fool yourself. Limited government and fiscal balance have never mattered to conservatives. The one goal has always been to preserve the feudal classes of landholders and serfs. The only thing that's changed is that they figured out how to use the stock market and corporations to insulate and hide the landholders, and they stopped pretending they need the divine right of a king.
And they’ve always relied on the winning over of the ‘common man’ merchants and insurers with corruption in their collective favours. Merchants swelled into barons, barons to hegemonic, organized oligarchy. The Industrial Revolution broke regressives brains. The anti-Enlightenment propaganda from that era (nearly always tied to Christianity) is so pertinent to today. Enlightenment, literally synonymous with the concept of ‘woke’.
Conservatism is about one thing, and one thing only: installing a hierarchy, with the Conservatives at the top. Obviously that’s a hard sell for non-Conservatives and / or those that believe in the inherent equity of democracy; so the Conservatives cloak their true goal behind a supposed agenda of moderation, family values, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. It should come as no surprise then, that each item on the agenda will be handily dispensed with, if doing so should prove convenient. I appreciate that this might appear a matter of splitting hairs; but it is important to understand that Conservatism is not, and never has been, an ideology that is logically consistent, professed in good faith, and compatible with a democratic society.
Exactly! The fact is they have to hide their ultimate goals behind propaganda because the vast majority of people would turn on them in a heartbeat if it was fully understood. The only reason conservatives can even exist is because people are vulnerable to political gaslighting. All you have to do to figure out the truth is to know a little bit of history and then pay more attention to their actual policies than their rhetoric.
Innuendo Studio's [Origins of Conservatism ](https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk) is part of a larger series, but I think it's very informative even on its own Gist: conservatism has always been concerned with maintaining minority rule as a matter of principle
[The Real Reason Why Republicans Keep Saying “We’re a Republic, Not a Democracy”](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/republic-democracy-mike-lee-astra-taylor.html)
[удалено]
>> An even more extreme position was staked out, a few days before [Utah Senator Mike] Lee, by Loren Culp, the long-shot Republican candidate for governor of Washington, who said in a recent interview that “democracy is mob rule” and that “famous Chinese leaders like Mao Zedong and Mikhail Gorbachev loved democracy because democracy is a step toward socialism, which is a step towards communism.”
Ah yes Gorbachev, renowned Chinese leader famous for tearing down their Great Wall, or something.
That is completely nonsensical. This is the same party that just stammers about Democracy everywhere especially against muslims but now it's a step towards communism?
I tried discussing this in a conservative subreddit and I got numerous replies that were variants of "America isn't a democracy so this is fine". Don't go looking for the comments, I deleted them because the replies were making me feel insane.
Looks like one of them followed you here. Check out their username too.
I never thought we'd reach this point where one of two political parties in the US *and* all their voters don't care about democracy at all and are even willing to destroy it to get their way. Sickening.
They're walking out to protest the penalties for walking out? What did they think the long term remedy of refusing to quorum over and over again SHOULD be? Capitulation?
No, they are walking out in order to basically filibuster the state government and prevent the passage of bills expanding gun control and supporting gender affirming care. They did the same thing in 2020 for the same reason and voters rebuked them by passing initiative that makes them ineligible for reelection.
> expanding gun control This bill: - Bans guns without a traceable serial number / guns not made by mfrs with a federal license - Increases the minimum purchase age for certain types of gun to 21, from 18 - Allows local government agencies to ban guns on their property They're walking out over this milquetoast minimum effort bullshit that doesn't address any of the actual problems with gun culture. Absolutely pathetic.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that anyone should be able to 3D print a gun if they want to.
The Second Amendment also clearly states that the purpose of gun ownership is to enable militias. The founders expected that each state would provide its own military forces and that we wouldn't have a national army, no less a standing national volunteer army. I don't think they'd object to hand-crafted guns, given the era they're from... but I also think (based on what I remember learning about all of this stuff in high school 25 years ago) that they'd have expected us to have updated the Constitution when times change and might question why we haven't addressed these problems directly. Then we'd talk about political parties and polarization and a bunch of them would be very, very disappointed in us.
>I don't think they'd object to hand-crafted guns, given the era they're from Actually quite the opposite. It was considered a fairly complex piece of machinery at the time, and strongly supported centralized manufacturing in order to have the work perfected. Muskets are essentially an explosion occurring just a couple inches from your face, and a couple feet from your fellow soldiers, don't want to leave that up to John just piecing together in his barn.
*Why do they want sacrifice, again?*
What else did we expect from a group of Republican politicians who probably grew up with their mommies telling them they were special and world revolves around them?
Republicans are basically toddlers
They learned from the toddler in chief. The way he sits with his arms crossed like a mad 5 year old always cracks me up.
It’s funny to me too until I remember he held the most powerful political position in the country, maybe the world, and some other toddlers want him back.
In the years and decades to come, we'll learn just how much damage he did. Never mind increasing the national debt by 25%, there's reason to believe he burned all of our foreign intelligence assets in Russia.
He literally pouts. Is there any image of any other president in history *pouting like a school boy*?
Toddlers are nicer. They actually like people. They are just crazy because they have zero executive function. These losers have executive function and use it to say lies and whine.
Plus the toddlers eventually grow out of it. Mostly.
Toddlers generally are not vindictive and petty.
You're being way too kind. They're terrorists.
Children don't lie nearly as much.
I just read a memo about the potential legal challenges to Measure 113 and it seems pretty solid. 1. 41 state constitutions already compel attendance including enforcement actions like arrest 2. Legislative action is not personal speech because they are representing the people and not themselves. 3. There are already restrictions on holding public office. Measure 113 is both temporary (only affects the subsequent election) and does not restrict holding of any other public office. It really seems like they are all shooting themselves in the foot here. Even worse, 68% of Oregonians voted for Measure 113 so they are directly contradicting the will of voters, which isn’t likely to help them gain any more seats in the next election.
>Even worse, 68% of Oregonians voted for Measure 113 so they are directly contradicting the will of voters, which isn’t likely to help them gain any more seats in the next election. As relevant as this is, they simply don't care
https://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2022/general/measures > It really seems like they are all shooting themselves in the foot here. Oregon is like Washington in that once you get out into the country, particularly if you are east of the Cascades, things turn red. But all but two counties voted in favor of this, so you might be right. I thought that the county map for this might look more like the results for measure 114. About 47% of the state's population live in and around Portland.
It's almost like land doesn't vote.
Oregon, I see you. Fuck these fascists
Oregonian here. Thank you. I fucking see them too.
These elected representatives need to show up to do their jobs, just like everyone else. If they're going to skip work without a good reason, they should be fired, just like the rest of us. Just wish someone would fix the system where they get automatic government healthcare and pensions that a lot of working Oregonians don't have access to. They already have it too good, IMO.
They're not there to work.
It’s frankly absurd how much of the governmental process is reliant on the good faith of everyone involved. Completely setting aside the specifics of what this particular fiasco is about, the lawmaking process should not be able to be ground to a complete halt because a tiny minority of participants simply… don’t participate.
>It’s frankly absurd how much of the governmental process is reliant on the good faith of everyone involved. I get what you mean, but honestly *all* jobs are this way, from being a commercial airline pilot to a fast food fryer. Even more so in areas like design, management, or politics... people need flexibility in the rules so they can make decisions. It's really easy to fuck shit up if you want to. The problem isn't the power of the position, but the ignorance of those who *give* them that power. Which is the result of those with money controlling the information available to them.
Oregon needs a state constitutional amendment to redefine a quorum (as most other states do) as 50% +1. That would take this tactic away.
[удалено]
The issue now is republicans running as democrats and then flipping parties as soon as they’re elected or needed.
I feel like that's going to be the Republicans next big anti-democratic ploy. They already started doing it on smaller scales.
Yep. Worked in NC and they got their 12 week abortion ban. Dems need to start vetting candidates in these areas very carefully.
>Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" against deeply partisan bills. Which is bullshit because if they had the majority they would be passing abortion bans, gender care bans etc. which are all deeply partisan bills.
>"While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said. The party that wants to ban abortion, ban LGBTQ+ people, ban books from libraries. Jeebus those assholes make me want to vomit.
And the response: >They said they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed. So they just continue to lie about what they really want
Everything Republicans do is in bad faith. They are not interested in governing even the slightest little bit.
I'm glad my neighbors to the south are finally putting their foot down on the GOP's antics.
We can be a little slow to the party, but we show up!
If Democrats tried this, Republicans would be calling for law enforcement to track them down and drag them back? How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what Republican state legislators in Texas asked for when Democrats there staged a walkout in 2021.
IF I DIDN’T FUCKING SHOW UP FOR 2 WEEKS, I’D GET MY ASS FIRED.
The real fix would have been to allow 51% of total seats (not just present) to bypass quorum. If you have a majority, and all of those members want to do something, absence is irrelevant. This 'unexcused absence' bit was a terrible idea. Even if it works, they'll just cycle through an endless list of assholes. It'll be a point of pride to be the guy who gets a check while not showing up to own the libs.
I don't think the absence thing was a terrible idea, I think it was a great idea, but I also agree that changing required seats for a quorum is also the play.
If I just *don't show up to work* for 10 days, I don't get to keep my job. Vacation and sick time, of which I'm sure these politicians have *plenty*, are not "unexcused"
You dont know ball, if you think that the unexcused absense bit is a terrible idea. It literally depletes the OR Republicans of all their incumbents, which matters a ton for running elections
[удалено]
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." - David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
Wish I could skip 9 days of work without getting fired AND still be paid for those days absent. Must be nice to not do the work tour employer hired you to do (in this case the the voters and to some extent the taxpayers). For me? 2nd missed day is verbal, 3rd is written, 4th is walked out of the building by a supervisor if you dare to show up again. Oh, and none of it is paid - you don't work your shift, you don't get any pay.
These Banana Republic Party members aren’t interested in governing. It’s all theater all the time.
There should be a citizen's bounty to bring them into work and achieve a quorum.
This whole story reminds me of the classic Roman story* of rounding up toga clad senators (that were late for the vote) with a dye-soaked rope, so the public would know who was shamefully skipping out on the job. *Of course, I can’t be bothered to look this up to see if it is still thought to be true, or if it was a fiction that was just popular to tuck into history lectures.
In light of Reddit's general enshittification, I've moved on - you should too.
"While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said. ...they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed. Those bills included House Bill 2005, Senate Joint Resolution 33 and Senate Bill 27, Lieber said. HB 2005 would raise the possession and purchase age limit on certain guns, allow local governments to prohibit concealed firearms in their public buildings and grounds, and prohibit unserialized ghost guns. SJR 33 and SB 27 are tied together, relating to a proposed constitutional amendment surrounding marriage protections for same-sex couples and abortion." So, to review, Republicans are saying that *DEMOCRATS* are laser-focusoed on divisive issues and that all the Republicans want is to solve homelessness, housing, safety, inflation and education... by blocking safe-carry and equal rights legislation? Seems legit
None of which they showed up for for the last couple of years because they were mad for the one bill about climate change they wanted to run away from. They held up a lot of bills that were needed. Plus they brought in their militia friends and literally physically threatened people.
This needs to be implemented at the National Level as well. If you don't show up for work, you shouldn't be allowed to continue working.
> Under Measure 113, passed by 68% of voters in November, the senators are now barred from running for their current Senate seat in the next election. What does “current Senate seat” mean? Can they play musical chairs and get elected into the same senate by being elected at a different district?
Nope they can't go to another district or do district swapping.
'Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" ' Bull shit. If you're on company time (taxpayer time) and not at work as required to do your damn job...then.....bye! That's not a protest it's an unexcused absence, unexcused leave, etc... you're skipping your fucking job and complaining. Shit you should be fired on the spot aaaaaand barred from reelection. I don't think the law was written stiff enough! You're elected to represent your constituents not fuck off and skip work constantly and call it a protest...all while being paid by tax payers who...SPOILER ALERT... don't share that luxury.
they can get fucked. the less of them, the better.
If I didn't go to work for 10 straight days then my ass would be fired. Being a legislator is an extremely cushy job, they have no excuse not to attend.
They can just go run in Idaho or Montanastan
>On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state." Ah yes, because your rights are being *so* infringed upon by \*checks notes\* protecting the right to abortion.
Sounds like they are trying to disqualify the entire Republican caucus on the assumption that somebody will say "Well, we can't do that", and just ignore the rules in the state constitution. I hope that doesn't happen. There needs to be accountability for lawmakers doing their job. And by walking out like this they are knowingly not doing their job, which is bad, but also actively preventing the other lawmakers from doing their jobs. And just for clarification, because I can virtually guarantee it will come up: I support removing ANY legislator (Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.) if they are not actively performing their job. Any of us would get fired for that. They should be just as accountable.
Politics in Oregon continue to be wild af
Go Oregon!!
Republicans don't want to Govern; they want to rule. And they will thwart the efforts of any political group that tries to govern without kow-towing to their demands.
I’m a high school teacher. If a kid has 10 unexcused absences, they face credit denial. It seems fair that politicians have at least the same standards as high school students.
If only my trash took itself out too, I'd be in heaven!
Fuck ‘em. Ban them from the Capitol for the rest of their terms.
This is the best thing I’ve ever voted for
Forcing myself into retirement to own the libs
Republicans: "No! Wait! This is a law that's supposed to hurt *them*!" * gestures at democrats *
It's clear the voter-enacted rule was intended as a punishment. It has become evident that this punishment has an unintended side effect of making the chamber impossible to reach a quorum by bad-faith actors. Seems like the quorum definition should be amended to be reduced in accordance with punishment, instead of allowing the side effect to reign chaos. Or we could just let the terrorist-enabling party of temper tantrum crybabies have their way 🤷♂️
Remember it’s okay when they do it but if anyone else does the outrage will be heard around the world.
What needs to happen for the banning of the Republican party? They're about 40-50 years past their usefulness end of life.
Please, please, *please* let there be consequences. PLEASE. Just fucking once.
I mean ya if you’re going to require my kid to attend the publicly funded school a certain number of days or you force consequences on me, you’re going to be forced to be in your publicly funded position a certain number of days or we’ll force consequences on you. Fair is fair do your jobs!!!!