Patterico's Pontifications

6/26/2013

Gov. Perry Calls a New Session

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:00 pm

Some rare good news for the rule of law:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Wednesday called for a second special session of the Texas Legislature to reconsider an abortion bill that failed following a filibuster — cancelling the small victory the bill’s opponents thought they had won following a marathon filibuster by a state senator Tuesday night.

The new special session will start July 1 at 2 p.m. and will run for no more than 30 days.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas,” Perry said in a statement. “Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state. Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn.”

Mob rule will not win the day.

Well done, Governor.

UPDATE: Here’s how the always hackish L.A. Times portrays last night’s events:

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 8.03.47 PM

There was a vote held, and the bill passed 19-10, but due to chaos in the chamber by a mob of Democrats, the bill was not signed.

That is portrayed as Davis and her allies “defeating” the bill.

They’re liars at the L.A. Times. That’s all they are, folks. Just liars.

134 Responses to “Gov. Perry Calls a New Session”

  1. The L.A. Times… “All the Newsprint That’s Fit to Line the Birdcage… or Wrap the Fish”

    Colonel Haiku (86efc5)

  2. Didn’t they kill the filibuster in a suspect way? Claiming the Senator was off topic by talking about a sonogram law?

    NaBr (344da2)

  3. Yep, discussing sonomgrams was held to be the third and final violation of the procedural rules. the first” discussing Planned Parenthood’s budget. Second, another Senator helped adjust her backbrace. I’m sure we will be informed in a jiffy that these rulings were done with the utmost respect for the law, unlike the “mob” (cough, cough)

    ted (e531b7)

  4. But Patterico! It’s not “lying” when it is stopping a bunch of lifeydoodle ignorant religious fools.

    Or so I keep hearing. That will be Teh Narrative, and it will receive quite a bit of help not just in the media, but from others.

    Left or right, this situation should have been denounced by all. Even by opponents of the bill. Mob action to prevent votes are acid on our society.

    And as usual, most people don’t pay attention. Or make snarky comments. And focus on folks on “their” side who don’t pass the litmus test. All the while, precedents are being set that genuinely attack our basic freedoms.

    Simon Jester (9d6fbc)

  5. Seems to me that all those topics appear to be close to on topic. I can see a violation for the back brace adjustment if it took an exceedingly long time.

    It appears the actions to kill the filibuster warranted an action like a mob blocking the signing of the bill.

    NaBr (344da2)

  6. “mob action”–“not ok”. Blatant, indefensible rulings to stop the filibuster–“ok” Really?

    Or, to put it another way “left or right, dishonest and unsupported rulings to end the filibuster should have been denounced by all.”

    ted (e531b7)

  7. Actually, the back brace was the most defensible, since it was a technical violation of the rule that the filibustering Senator “stand unaided.”

    ted (e531b7)

  8. I denounce it and I’m not a firm pro-choicer.

    NaBr (344da2)

  9. It appears the actions to kill the filibuster warranted an action like a mob blocking the signing of the bill.

    It appears the mob blocking the signing of the bill warranted an action like a new legislative session.

    You guys play dirty AND you still lose.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. NaBr,

    The Texas Senate has rules that apply to the Senator engaging in a filibuster. (See Rule 4.) What rules govern your mob?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  11. Chanced that ted and NaBr are different people? About the same as the chances that ObamaCare will result in a cost-effective delivery of health care for all.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  12. What rules govern your mob?

    ted/NaBr’s rules are: do anything to win.

    Too bad it won’t work this time.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  13. DRJ, had the Texas Senate actually honestly followed their own rules, you might have a point.

    ted (e531b7)

  14. You guys?

    What, I’m a bad guy pro-choicer because I think they ended a filibuster by completely shady means? I would expect nothing less of a response from every side if the situations were reversed. If they’re playing by the rules we set to pass laws, they’re deserving of the respect that should come with it.

    NaBr (344da2)

  15. I do believe “anything to win” is a quite accurate description of the rulings used to stop the filibuster

    ted (e531b7)

  16. Have you read the rules, ted? Sen. Davis did not stay on the topic of the legislation when she talked about previous legislation.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  17. This is the same tack they took in the redistricting session ten years, that they reprised in Wisconsin, they weaponize every institution, heads we lose, tails we lose,

    narciso (3fec35)

  18. Well Patterico, look up my IP and I doubt ted lives in Arizona.

    I’m just calling your BS.

    And I don’t think abortion is above legislation, this is simply a dispute about proper conduct of the government.

    NaBr (344da2)

  19. Does anyone here think Democrats would have done what the Republicans did — relinquished this bill and moved to another special session? If you really believe this is about proper conduct of government, you should be applauding the Republicans for taking the safe course and starting over.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  20. And you should be criticizing the mob that used these tactics to stop the proper conduct of government.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  21. DRJ–for your and other readers edification:

    Although there is no Senate rule by which a member
    can be taken from the floor for pursuing “dilatory tactics” (40
    S.J. Reg. 882 (1927)), a Senator who has been repeatedly called
    to order for not confining his debate to the question before the
    Senate may be required by the Senate to discontinue his
    address.
    A point of order against further debate of a question by
    a Senator on the ground that his remarks are not germane to the
    question before the Senate is often disposed of by the chair with
    a warning to the Senator who has the floor to confine his
    remarks to the pending question.
    When speaking, a member must confine himself to the
    subject under debate. In discussing an amendment, the debate
    must be confined to the amendment and not include the general
    merits of the bill or other proposition.
    The point of order having been raised for the third time
    that a Senator who had the floor was filibustering and not
    confining his remarks to the bill before the Senate, the chair
    requested the Senate to vote on the point of order. It was
    sustained and the Senator speaking yielded the floor (44 S.J.
    Reg. 1780 (1935)

    http://www.senate.state.tx.us/rules/SenateRules83.pdf (pages 912)

    Yep, discussing sonomgrams or the affect on Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, was not germane? A rather thin reed on which to stand and charge others with disrespecting the rules.

    ted (e531b7)

  22. DRJ, you realize that the only reason the Republicans “started over” was because their efforts to “roll back the clock” and have their votes to pass be shown as having taken place before the deadline was untenable, given the massive media coverage. And,after first trying to say they had counted the votes in time, they huddled for one houe in a closed door session before throwing in the towel.

    This post started with the premise that “mob rule” won’t be rewarded. Why the reluctance to admit the dirty tactics on the Republican side?

    ted (e531b7)

  23. I would question if the proper route to go for this bill would have been to suffer the filibuster and then call a special session anyways.

    They caused the mob.

    NaBr (344da2)

  24. ted,

    Thank you for reprinting and linking the information I previously provided in comment #10.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  25. DRJ, you are welcome.

    ted (e531b7)

  26. It’s always amusing to me that shouting mobs on the left are considered fighters for democracy while polite mobs on the right are always a threat to the same.

    Shouting mobs have a place. I am not against them from an objective sense. However, I would say that elected representatives also have a place that supersedes shouting mobs, regardless of political leanings.

    I suspect when Alinsky tactics are finally used by the right, the lefty chorus of condemnation will be shrill. Because, it is about to happen.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  27. NaBr,

    So they asked for it? Kind of like a girl in a provocative dress asks to be raped?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  28. Honestly, there should be posters of Gosnell’s handiwork behind her, so people understand exactly what she is defending,

    narciso (3fec35)

  29. narciso,

    That would make a good poster for her opponent in the next election. I also expect Sen. Davis will see her face on posters with Obama’s tweet underneath.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  30. DRJ,

    I would hope you would recognize the difference between raping someone and a mob that blocks a signature.

    I would also hope you would recognize the difference between wearing a dress and misconduct.

    NaBr (344da2)

  31. That Punch and Judy show was cute.

    JD (b63a52)

  32. Hey, DRJ, you forgot that it’s always the GOP’s fault. When they do what they are elected to do, it is bad and when they try to pass legislation that their constituents support, it is wrong. Get with the program.

    The left is always right. Always right.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  33. The common link between the Prop 8 ruling and this event is—if my side prevails, then that’s all that counts. In the Prop 8 ruling, in essence the Supreme Court gave a blank check for government officials to have struck down initiatives they don’t like by refusing to defend them when challenged in court–even when the highest court in California says there was standing. But, for those in support of gay marriage, their side won, so who cares.

    Here, we have one side denouncing a “mob” and their actions for leading to the defeat of what they supported. Those who “support” the “mob” are happy, their side won (however temporarily.)

    I don’t support the “mob”, but I also don’t support the underhanded tactics that led to the end of the filibuster. If you have rules, play by them. If you can’t stop this filibuster with legitimate rulings, then give the other side their day–you can call a special session again time, as they just did.

    Same thing for the Supreme Court–if you want to take a case on gay marriage, then make an honest ruling one way or the other, not an underhanded ruling which opens the door to future anarchy by an executive branch which may disagree with an initiative.

    You know, the “rule of law”, not the “my side won”

    ted (e531b7)

  34. It’s funny how they say they want to make abortion ‘safe, legal and rare’ but all of their actions belie it, they are always inenimically opposed to any abortion restriction, to the point that the Born Alive bill, is demagogued, well it’s ethos of Peter Singer that seeme to be at work, and Holdren,

    narciso (3fec35)

  35. NaBr, in my experience, has always been reasonable. “Ted” was also “mike” previously. Shocking.

    JD (b63a52)

  36. Nope, Ted, not buying it. Hence, Obamacare. Then 2010.

    The Supreme Court makes decisions on whether they are Constitutional or not. We may not agree, but it is there’s to decide. Hence, Citizens United.

    Are you starting to see how this works now?

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  37. narciso,

    I agree, that’s very funny. The practices abortion advocates defend are abhorrent in lots of cases. It also makes me feel sad to even think about the practice and the way that people celebrate it. They make it seem like it’s beyond question and the best thing since sliced bread.

    But I am also always puzzled by the pro-lifers to always push the envelope a little too far. The courts have said something like, 24-26 weeks is a fair barrier to abortion. Yet legislation continually gets submitted to push it to 20 weeks and close down all the abortion facilities in one fell swoop.

    NaBr (344da2)

  38. NaBr:

    I would hope you would recognize the difference between raping someone and a mob that blocks a signature.

    I think rape is the use of force or duress to compel a sexual act. I think a mob uses force or duress to compel a different kind of act — in this case, a political act. Is that the difference you see?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  39. Here, we have one side denouncing a “mob”

    Not for the reasons you claim, but because that is an inappropriate way to act. It has no place in our system. Whether or not the legislative machinations were appropriate is really a SQUIRREL point cooked up to gloss over and distract from objectively bad behavior. Not liking a legislative ruling is insufficient to justify that nonsense.

    JD (b63a52)

  40. and close down all the abortion facilities in one fell swoop.

    I seem to have missed where this is happening.

    JD (b63a52)

  41. I don’t see it as pro-lifers “pushing the envelope.” What I see is medical breakthroughs moving back the point at which fetuses become viable.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  42. The SQUIRRELS!!! are becoming as large as those creatures in Pacific Rim,

    narciso (3fec35)

  43. JD,

    It may not have been there, I’m not familiar with the bill presented, but I have heard it closes down a majority of facilities. I don’t mean to exaggerate the Bill.

    NaBr (344da2)

  44. Kind of like in Europe, which seems to be the goal that we achieve.

    Regardless, it’s funny to hear someone such as ted, or whatever he chooses to use this time to post, to acclaim the “rule of law” in a legislative debate, but completely condemn it when it applies as the law of the land or state: DOMA or Prop. 8 for examples.

    There is a remedy. It’s called voting.

    First, notice I said “someone such as” and second, I don’t necessarily disagree with the decisions. Although I think Scalia had some very good points.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  45. DRJ,

    Because of the use of infant incubators that cost thousands of dollars to maintain? I’m not completely familiar with the neonatal units and how commonplace and easy they are to maintain, but that sounds a bit like forcing someone to get healthcare.

    Perhaps we shouldn’t be acting like death doesn’t come to us all. We’re not immortal beings that, once brought into this world, never fade away.

    It’s the same kind of argument the left uses to push healthy lifestyles. (Because it exists, I compel you to USE IT!)

    NaBr (344da2)

  46. Also, NaBr, you need to explain to me what “misconduct” you think occurred last night. I assume you believe there was a problem in the way Sen. Davis’ filibuster was terminated. As you know, the Senate leadership said she violated the rules 3 times by wearing a back brace and by talking off-topic twice. She and other Democrats disagreed with those rulings and planned to appeal. That’s how the process works.

    If the Republicans had claimed the bill passed, the appeal would have gone forward and it may or may not have succeeded. But I fail to see how you know there was misconduct since there was a basis for the rulings that ended the filibuster.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  47. I sincerely doubt that it closes them down without affording them the opportunity to bring their facilities up to code. The same code all the other outpatient ambulatory facilities have to abide by.

    JD (b63a52)

  48. NaBr,

    I think the law will close down substandard facilities that fail to upgrade to ambulatory (outpatient) surgical care status. I suspect abortion advocates will make sure there is funding for these facilities to comply with applicable outpatient clinic standards, and everyone will be better off. Especially the patients.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  49. The bill would have held abortion clinics to the same standards as any other medical clinic in regards to patient care and admission to hospitals if something went wrong during the procedure.

    By definition it would have closed every abortion clinic in Texas except for six, located in major metropolitan areas.

    At least you were arguing from ignorance and you admit it.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  50. DRJ,

    Yeah, I think I explained my position earlier, up near post 5. I basically think the calls to violation were thin at best. That the leadership abused their power essentially.

    I may well be wrong, I have not heard Sen Davis in video. But the topics do not appeal to be very far from the topic under discussion.

    That’s the misconduct I’m talking about. Once you break the rules, the rules are broken.

    So why couldn’t they have just called a special session anyways? Why bother killing the filibuster?

    NaBr (344da2)

  51. NaBr,

    Do you object to specialized care for premature infants? What about life support for brain-injured patients, or cardiac care for stroke and heart attack victims, or chemotherapy for cancer patients, or dialysis for kidney patients? These are all expensive therapies that we have the ability to provide, but you could also argue shouldn’t be used because it’s their time to die.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  52. And we have all wasted our time. Jeez, Louise, I am going to stop doing this. The trolls are a waste.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  53. DRJ (48),

    I have no issue with that.

    NaBr (344da2)

  54. I am kind of partial to premature births.

    JD (b63a52)

  55. DRJ (51),

    I do not object to it’s existence, no. But I also don’t expect use of those medical treatments for people that claim to want a “Do Not Resuscitate” status.

    NaBr (344da2)

  56. They don’t have a defense, for the indefensable, that’s why they have to yell Squirrel, as loud as possible.

    narciso (3fec35)

  57. Ag80,

    What trolls? Surely you’re not claiming I’m a troll.

    NaBr (344da2)

  58. Narciso,

    What “SQUIRREL!” are you referring to?

    NaBr (344da2)

  59. NaBr:

    That’s the misconduct I’m talking about. Once you break the rules, the rules are broken.

    She broke the rules by talking about something off-topic, even though it was “not very far” off-topic. As you note, once you break the rules, the rules are broken.

    So why couldn’t they have just called a special session anyways? Why bother killing the filibuster?

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. This was a special session. The filibuster was designed to end the special session without allowing a vote on any pending legislation. Davis not only killed the abortion legislation, she also prevented a vote on other pending matters involving juvenile justice and highway transportation. Now the Legislature will have to return to Austin for 30 more days for a second special session, and do it all again.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  60. I think narciso is referring to the smokescreen of SQUIRRELS Ted/mike threw out.

    JD (b63a52)

  61. Also Ag80,

    I a little resent to referring to my honesty as “ignorance”

    NaBr (344da2)

  62. It’s a pattern isn’t it, we have to vote for bills, just to find out ‘what creamy goodness’ is in it,
    of course it turns out to be a whizzo chocolates
    special.

    narciso (3fec35)

  63. DRJ (59),

    As for the off-topic aspect, perhaps I’m just basing this on how federal filibusters work. I could have swore they similar rules in action and I could have swore filibusters wandered to near topic aspects in those. Hence, why I said, I very well be wrong.

    As for the filibuster, yeah, it was a filibuster. They’re typically designed to prevent something. My question was, if the state had the power to call another special session…Why didn’t they just not call the ticky-tacky rulings and allow the filibuster to succeed and THEN call a new special session?

    NaBr (344da2)

  64. NaBr,

    I get the feeling your concerns are that people were unfair to Sen. Davis and that the bill may close down abortion facilities, leaving some women without care. I don’t share your concern but I understand it.

    I think Sen. Davis is a smart, capable women who can fend for herself in the Senate. She knows how to navigate the Senate rules and doesn’t need a mob to “protect” her from the other Senators. Also, please consider whether shutting down substandard abortion facilities is really a bad thing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  65. R.I.P. Alan Myers, drummer for DEVO during their heyday.

    Icy (e9b04f)

  66. It is my understanding that the federal rules are far more relaxed than the TX rules.

    JD (b63a52)

  67. NaBr:

    I have no idea if you are a troll or not. I know ted is.

    Regardless, you were arguing without knowing the content of the bill.

    And I was wrong to not include that it would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks, which seems to be the standard in at least some European nations.

    My point is to understand what you are arguing for or against.

    The Texas Legislature has rules that it follows, just as the U.S. Congress.

    Mobs and protesters are not bad per se in my mind, but at least they should be informed.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  68. NaBr:

    My question was, if the state had the power to call another special session…Why didn’t they just not call the ticky-tacky rulings and allow the filibuster to succeed and THEN call a new special session?

    It’s expensive for Texas to hold special sessions. Why should we have to bear that expense if the filibuster can be stopped through legal means and a vote can be taken?

    By the way, some might call a filibuster just another ticky-tacky rule that shouldn’t be allowed. As for me, I think rules are rules. If Davis had succeeded in her filibuster, that’s the breaks. However, she didn’t and there was time for a vote. It’s not right that a mob prevented a legal vote.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  69. HICKS NIX CHICKS CLINICS?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  70. DRJ (64),

    As I said in (53), I do not have any issue with closing down substandard facilities. Contrary from what you seem to believe, I do not believe in the unabridged access to abortion. I am not concerned with women’s access to these facilities. I do not believe the practice is above regulation and I support such agendas to raise restrictions on the practice. My previous post was in reference to pro-lifer’s failings in their legislative goals to regulate the practice. By always pushing beyond a largely supported common ground.

    NaBr (344da2)

  71. TEXANS PROTECTIN’ BABE’S BABES

    Icy (e9b04f)

  72. “Ignorance” is not an insult. I am just as ignorant about many things as you or anyone else.

    I am often honest about many issues that I may be ignorant about. My honesty makes them no more correct.

    For example, I have never seen you post here before. I have no experience with your posts. I am ignorant of them. I draw conclusions based on what you have posted, but that does not make them right.

    So my responses are, by definition, ignorant until you prove me right or wrong.

    That is the difference between Patterico’s Pontification and most other political blogs.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  73. Ag80 (67),

    Perhaps I did not expect to get mobbed my multiple people over commenting on the post (including the site host). I opened the comment with a question and the discussions went from there. However, I’m honest and fair about the things I discuss and do not expect to be slandered or insulted. Those kind of remarks tend to lead to an uncivilized discussion which I typically work to maintain.

    NaBr (344da2)

  74. ==But I am also always puzzled by the pro-lifers to always push the envelope a little too far. The courts have said something like, 24-26 weeks is a fair barrier to abortion. Yet legislation continually gets submitted to push it to 20 weeks and close down all the abortion facilities in one fell swoop.==

    NaBr–I see you and others have already revisited the “close down all the abortion facilities in one fell swoop” exaggeration, but I am still curious about the first part of your “pushing the envelope” comment. Do you think if the bill had used a cut-off of 24 weeks (as you have suggested is more reasonable) instead of 20 weeks that that would have been satisfactory to get a bill passed? Would that number of additional weeks of gestational development toward viability have made Sen. Davis not resort to a filibuster? Would 24 weeks have quieted the mob so all Texas could join hands in beautiful Kumbaya momnent? I guess I am leery that “a few more weeks” would not still and always be “pushing the envelope” to you, too. Can you address this concern?

    elissa (1aa61b)

  75. DRJ (68),

    So it’s expensive…so what? A lot of things are expensive, like the medical practices we discussed earlier. The reason to not end the filibuster by those legislative means is because….it could create a mob that rushes the courthouse. It would be one thing if she was talking about drone war policy or reading from a book, it sounds like a narrow reading of the term “off topic” that was relied on, and it fails the eyeball test.

    NaBr (344da2)

  76. Well, NaBr, you can expect to be insulted. I have been and will continue to be. Slandered? Not so much.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  77. ted #22:

    This post started with the premise that “mob rule” won’t be rewarded. Why the reluctance to admit the dirty tactics on the Republican side?

    I don’t agree there were dirty tactics. The Republican position was that the vote was commenced and completed before Midnight, and at least one Senator said the fact the vote commenced before Midnight was enough. Democrats obviously disagreed.

    Senate leaders left the floor to view video verifying when the vote was completed, and Dewhurst ultimately acknowledged the legislation was not voted on, completed and signed in time to meet the special session Midnight deadline. The only remaining issue is why the time-stamp changed. I don’t know if it was a mistake or intentional, but the Senate Secretary’s log never changed and I need more information to say there was wrongdoing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  78. elissa (74),

    I cannot speak to whether this bill changing to 24 weeks would have quieted the mob. The mob was caused more by the legislative procedures to utilized to kill the filibuster, in my opinion, as I have stated in posts like (5).

    The reference to the 24 weeks issue was in reference to failings of the pro-life movement in enacting laws to legislate abortion. The pushing the envelope past the common ground issue. (As I tried to clarify in post (70) ).

    NaBr (344da2)

  79. MaBr:

    The reason to not end the filibuster by those legislative means is because….it could create a mob that rushes the courthouse. It would be one thing if she was talking about drone war policy or reading from a book, it sounds like a narrow reading of the term “off topic” that was relied on, and it fails the eyeball test.

    The Texas House allowed weeks of testimony and comments from over 500 people. It was time for a vote, not for mobs unhappy with the result.

    As for the filibuster, there are rules that govern how it can be done and ended. I’m sorry you don’t like the way the rules are narrowly construed. I’ve never really understood why those who filibuster aren’t allowed to go to the bathroom, but those are the rules. If we don’t follow them, we might as well not have them.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  80. Ag80 (76),

    If I can expect to be insulted, you can expect my gloves to come off as well. Gee, much like we saw in Texas. It’s not that I’m incapable of engaging in confrontations, I just prefer to have people in a listening state of mind when partaking in a discussion. If you would like to engage in petty insults and attempts to inflame each others emotional responses…then at least I now know and can respond accordingly.

    NaBr (344da2)

  81. NaBr,

    I watched the Senate session live. The mob was unruly before the filibuster ended. They were there to protest any changes to abortion law in Texas, not because they objected to how the proper conduct of government.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  82. Also, please consider whether shutting down substandard abortion facilities is really a bad thing.

    That such a concern is deemed by various observers (who, in particular, are big fans of the nanny state) as being somehow unimportant or intrusive is a sign of the upside-down, inverted age we live in.

    I wonder how much comfortability with wanton abortion is due to the belief that humans are a plague on Mother Earth, so the fewer of them, the better. Or a variation of that (as expressed to me a few years ago by a squishy Republican), in which the attitude is that some women shouldn’t have children, they should never have children, and they instead should be driven in an all-expenses-paid limousine to the local abortion clinic.

    An ideal sentiment to have in this age of — ironic though it is — compassion run amok.

    Mark (67e579)

  83. DRJ (79),

    I’m just saying, it’s a thin argument. And when you have thin arguments, you get secondary consequences some times.

    As for the weeks of testimony and comments. I swear I hear something like that every time the federal government passes some massive bill like Obamacare or the Voting Rights Act that just had 4(b) struck down.

    NaBr (344da2)

  84. NaBr,

    It’s true a lot of things are expensive but it’s one thing to spend money on expensive therapies that save lives. It’s another to waste money because a mob disrupted government business.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  85. NaBr,

    I’m not sure why you call rules a “thin argument.” Are you saying it’s like getting a ticket for going 32 in a 30-mph zone? In other words, it’s a distinction without merit? I understand why some people feel that way but some things require strict application of rules. I submit filibusters are one of those things.

    Also, the reason I mentioned the weeks of hearings is to show that people had an opportunity to be heard. It’s not as if this mob had never had the chance to express themselves. Their goal wasn’t to be heard, it was to stop the legislation. America isn’t supposed to be that way.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  86. Am I reading you correctly then, NaBr, that you do not believe the “mob” for lack if a better word was there in the gallery specifically to cheer on and bolster the filibuster with the intention and plan of stymieing the midnight vote–but rather, were provoked and went into chaos because of certain procedural matters with which the mob disapproved? That was not my impression, but I could be wrong.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  87. DRJ (84),

    As far as the expensiveness, I’m sure the expense of saving those lives would exceed the expense of having a special session. So I don’t really find the expense argument all the persuasive (Just letting you know my stance).

    Perhaps the aspect of saving lives has a bit of a fundamental disagreement. Personally, I think, I know, we all die. It’s been an issue in some government officials when they feel that they have to enact legislation to keep us all alive. This is the root of the nanny state. It’s caused massive problems. More personally in some countries like Great Britain, it seems downright sadistic when they order a man with “locked in Syndrome” that he has to continue to live, despite saying he has a desire to die because his life has no value other than torture to him. More broadly, an argument could probably be made about Medicare’s imbalancing of the budget (It seems it has thin grounds for only being afforded to people of a certain age while everyone else pays for it).

    The issue is that everyone is supposed to enact laws that satisfy everyone under jurisdiction of the law, to the best of your ability. Given the vast disagreement between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, a good middle ground is best. You can’t save them all.

    NaBr (344da2)

  88. DRJ (85),

    It a thin rules argument applies when the rules aren’t written clearly. When they are ambiguous using terms rather than hard data, like germane vs 30 mph.

    The weeks of testimony is clear enough. I’m just saying politicians don’t give it a lot of weight.

    NaBr (344da2)

  89. I know you’re arguing in good faith, NaBr, but we’re talking about abortion. By definition, we don’t save any of them.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  90. elissa (86),

    I’m not speaking to their original intention, simply saying that when the legislature took their action, the mob could be supported my a majority of people and not be largely condemned.

    NaBr (344da2)

  91. ==Given the vast disagreement between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, a good middle ground is best. ==

    I am a voice in the wilderness calling out”what is that middle ground”?

    elissa (1aa61b)

  92. DRJ (89),

    Hence why I say legislate the middle ground as best you can. 24 weeks is better than none. Closing down 12 substandard facilities with regulations is better than closing none.

    NaBr (344da2)

  93. elissa (90),

    The courts have previously put it at about 24-26 weeks I think. But more, I’m speaking to a tactic I would prefer pro-lifers take.

    NaBr (344da2)

  94. I’m sure you would “prefer” that. Because that way it requires only one side to participate in good faith. Nite nite.

    elissa (1aa61b)

  95. elissa (94),

    A valid argument about the honesty of one side vs the tugging from the other pulling in the tuggers direction, but I don’t think it applies to this case so well, only because of the arguments I presented in post (87) and (92).

    Good night.

    NaBr (344da2)

  96. Technology being created to save the lives of children in utero that parents want, is going to increasingly weaken it for those who want to kill the baby.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  97. … and it was 19-10 vote to my understanding. The “alleged” anger over process is simply a diversion by the Left.

    But nice to know the Left likes to kill LGBT, black, and latino babies with such ferocity that they’d sit around upsetting procedural moves at the TX Legislature to do so.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  98. Am I allowed to say that Senatrix Davis can stand up there and speak until she wets herself? 😆

    The mean Dana (3e4784)

  99. I don’t see it as pro-lifers “pushing the envelope.” What I see is medical breakthroughs moving back the point at which fetuses become viable.

    Which raises the question of all the babies who were deemed “not viable” and therefore, according to the Supreme Court, not people the state can protect from being casually murdered, before these breakthroughs. How can a person’s inherent nature be affected by the state of technology in the time and place where she happens to exist? How can the exact same baby be a person in 2013 (or 2050) and not a person in 1975? Or a person in the USA and not a person in Bangladesh?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  100. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Except, apparently not. Their Creator, it seems, only endows them with these rights if there is medical technology available in their area that could keep them alive outside the womb. If that technology is unavailable, He says “sorry, no rights for you”.

    What if the baby had the rights, but then an earthquake or hurricane destroyed all the hospitals in the area that could keep her alive were she to be delivered. Does her Creator say “sorry, taking those rights back now, it’s now OK for your mommy to hire a hit man and have you whacked; but don’t worry, if she doesn’t do that, I’ll be back with your slightly-tarnished rights again in a few weeks”? Not quite “inalienable”, eh?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  101. Remember, I’m not talking about states making different decisions about what rights to protect, and how; I’m talking about states that are willing and able to protect someone’s rights, but the Supreme Court says they may not do so, because the person they want to protect has no rights. Well, either those rights exist, and states may choose to protect them, or they don’t. If they do, how can the accidents of the external world change that?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  102. #99, Exactly. That is why the abortion debate should have nothing to do with how the women feels about her fetus/baby/whatever.

    Only three things define this debate
    1) When does life begin (I say embed in uterine wall)
    2) What right does the State have in defending life in this form?
    3) What should the penalty be for said crime?

    I think the fact people are being charged for murder in cases where the women is a few weeks along is opening up the debate again. Lawyers can’t have it both ways even though they want to.

    Hopefully, we will have an honest debate this time but I doubt it.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  103. The reason to not end the filibuster by those legislative means is because….it could create a mob that rushes the courthouse

    You think that mob organically showed up due to legislative machinations?

    JD (bdb1b0)

  104. That they would have been quiet and civil if only they got their way?

    JD (bdb1b0)

  105. NaBr:

    Hence why I say legislate the middle ground as best you can. 24 weeks is better than none.

    Did you expect pro-choice advocates to accept the middle ground prior to Roe v Wade? If not, why should pro-life advocates do that now?

    Closing down 12 substandard facilities with regulations is better than closing none.

    You would let partisan politics decide whether substandard medical facilities are allowed to operate?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  106. The mob was caused more by the legislative procedures to utilized to kill the filibuster, in my opinion

    Did the mob anticipate the maneuvers, and were there just in case they had the temerity to vote on a bill that had hundreds of witnesses testify over many weeks?

    JD (bdb1b0)

  107. DRJ (105),

    I think I explained my position well enough. And I would hope that standards set in medical facilities were grounded in some reasoning other than partisan politics.

    JD (104),

    I’ve explained my position on the mob and do not attempt to predict futures in alternate realities. It happened the way it happened.

    NaBr (344da2)

  108. This person *is* Dana’s old playmate, isn’t he?

    Simon Jester (9d6fbc)

  109. My middle ground is threat of death or great bodily harm to the mother and no criminal penalties for the mother in cases of rape. Is that ok?

    nk (875f57)

  110. I’m so fascinated (and repulsed) by the following, linked at the drudgereport, that I want to insert it here. It’s not necessarily OT in the context of the issue of abortion, because it’s a reminder of just how outright, well, stupid and irresponsible a large percentage of the left is—eg, the crowd that stormed the state capitol in Austin.

    I knew that folks on the left tended to be lousy judges of what makes people and situations good or bad, what makes humans tick, but I didn’t realize just how lousy they truly were.

    Keep in mind the type of people highlighted below are inserted in offices of the local, state and federal bureaucracy throughout America, including at the IRS, or even the Nidal-Hasan-ized US military.

    rasmussenreports.com, June 27: Half of all voters consider radical Muslims the bigger terrorist threat facing the nation, but supporters of President Obama consider the Tea Party to be as big a danger.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider radical Muslims to be the bigger threat to the United States today. Thirteen percent (13%) view the Tea Party that way, and another 13% consider other political and religious extremists to be the larger danger. Six percent (6%) point to local militia groups.

    [A]mong those who approve of the president’s job performance, just 29% see radical Muslims as the bigger threat. Twenty-six percent (26%) say it’s the Tea Party that concerns them most. Among those who Strongly Approve of the president, more fear the Tea Party than radical Muslims.

    As for those who disapprove of Obama’s performance, 75% consider radical Muslims to be the bigger terrorist threat. Just one percent (1%) name the Tea Party.

    Twenty percent (20%) of government workers see the Tea Party as the nation’s bigger terror threat. Twelve percent (12%) of private sector workers hold that view.

    Mark (67e579)

  111. It’s a bad bill, on conservative grounds.

    The worst of it is legislators interposing to demand overly specific protocols, and without much justification, alter standards that will not apply to other offices in Texas performing procedures of similar risk to patients.

    https://www.texmed.org/uploadedFiles/Current/Advocacy/Public_Health/TMA%20Letter%20to%20Full%20House%20SB%205HB60_62313.pdf

    Perry has just assured he will lose if the nominee in the next election, too. We need to win that one if its possible. Or maybe not. I tend to think these days the republic is gone.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  112. I’ve explained my position on the mob and do not attempt to predict futures in alternate realities. It happened the way it happened.

    And DRJ noted that she was watching it live, and that they were unruly prior to the filibuster being stopped. It strains credulity to think that they would have behaved well but for Republican misconduct, since their purpose was to shout down a piece of legislation that is sacred ground to the Left, and that they were acting poorly prior to the fig leaf cover of the filibuster being stopped.

    JD (b63a52)

  113. JD (112),

    Yeah, ok, so you’re claiming you knew what they were going to do and you may very well be right. If they were unruly prior to the filibuster ending, it shows that the legislative leaders should have known that such actions on their part might result in what happened.

    I’m just not commenting on what the mob was going to do (rush the legislature), because it didn’t happen like that. I understand everyone feels they don’t play by the rules (and I largely agree)…but I’m saying in this case, they were playing by the rules by performing a filibuster rather than mobbing the legislature from the get go, like in Madison.

    NaBr (a094a6)

  114. I am not claiming I knew what they were going to do. I am saying that DRJ was watching it live, and said they were disruptive prior to the legislative maneuvers. And this type of behavior tracks with what leftist groups have done in the past, ie Wisconsin.

    That they were unruly prior changes nothing, in my estimation, as to how Team R should have handled it. Allowing the heckler veto never serves anyone well.

    JD (b63a52)

  115. JD-Those silly patriotic squirrels could have just quietly sat and bid their time up there in the gallery–patiently waiting for the Republicans in charge to misbehave procedurally and thereby unleash them from their virtual cages to express umbrage at the process. But no! They had to hop around and chatter and perform for the TV cameras throughout the filibuster. Those optics kind of ruined the narrative NaBr’s been positing here, I think.

    elissa (24b4c0)

  116. NaBr – Last night you kept circling back to references to judicial decisions about 24-26 weeks. Can you please clarify what specifically you a referencing?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. corr. – you are referencing

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. NaBr – Would you agree that President Obama’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB and CFPB were clearly illegal?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. Twenty percent (20%) of government workers see the Tea Party as the nation’s bigger terror threat.

    — Well of course! They know that the Tea Party wants to streamline the government, and we all know there’s nothing scarier than the prospect of being forced to go out and get a real job where you’ll actually have to WORK for a living.

    Icy (bf16ac)

  120. NaBr,

    It is not playing by the rules when the gallery joins the filibuster. Filibusters are for the Senators, not visitors in the gallery or elsewhere inside the Capitol. The Capitol rules provide that visitors “must remain orderly and speak quietly.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  121. That the mob’s presence and actions were planned before-hand is clear from the actions of former Austin mayor in signaling them when to sound off and, for that matter, by having them bussed in a day or two before the final vote. Their actions were not in response to anything done in the Senate chambers that night, other than the signals of their “handler”.

    As for the mob having the approval of a majority, about 60% of Texans polled recently by a UT/TT poll support banning abortion after 20 weeks. That Texas GOP’ers are largely pro-life seems to indicate that they get elected in part by claiming to agree with that sentiment. The popular support appears to in fact be in favor of the 20-week ban.

    The Texas Senate has different rules governing filibusters from those in the U.S. Senate and they are much stricter, even to the point of disallowing references to the original bill, in a filibuster against an amendment. While it might appear that they GOP was attempting shady stuff in regard to the timing, notice that they did not decide that the vote was taken in time. Notice, also, that the Texas law doesn’t permit the legislature to “stop the clocks” – like the U.S. Congress does – by pretending that it isn’t closing time yet during a vote or debate or what-have-you. Nor does the law on special sessions permit voting after the end of the session, which comes at midnight of the 30th day. Those differences will confuse people, because most states follow the looser federal rules, rather than a strict reading of the rules. And, just to be sure you all get it, under the Texas rules one Senator may not substitute for another in a filibuster.

    I hope that there are sufficient law enforcement to clear the Senate gallery the next time. One of the potential problems is that the left gets a free pass – or appears to – in every single instance of so-called civil disobedience, while the right gets accused of doing or saying things that never happened. At some point, the right will start sending their “action teams” to these occasions and a confrontation will break out, potentially violent confrontation. A failure of the government to compel the left to obey the law too often will produce a back-lash by the right as well as eroding further the legitimacy of governments, across the board.

    Ike (a2a956)

  122. elissa (115),

    Those actions by people in the gallery may have changed the optics for you, they don’t necessarily change the optics for everyone. I’m not supportive of the heckler’s veto, but I do think in some situations, the practice is allowable. I was talking specifically about the thin grounds that were used to kill the filibuster. Not about the crowd’s behavior prior.

    daleyrocks (116),

    I do not have the rulings handy, I was working off of memory, that’s why I stated it as “I think it was at 24-26 weeks”. I believe a similar 20 week rule was tried here in Arizona.

    daleyrocks (118),

    Yes, clearly.

    DRJ (120),

    If the visitors were disorderly, then yes, that would be grounds to remove the visitors. I don’t think the Senator should be blamed with the actions of others and I’m not sure how the crowd joined the filibuster. If the crowd joined the filibuster and started asking questions of the senator, I can see that being grounds for a valid violation if it was forbidden. Those were not the rulings that were made however.

    NaBr (a094a6)

  123. NaBr – Thank you for the reply at #122. I ask about the judicial rulings you referenced because I am unfamiliar with legal rulings on medical findings about the viability of life and would be interested in reviewing them.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  124. it’s a big gift to Hillary, an ostentatious gift when something much more modest would have sufficed … for example these speckled white stoneware apple bakers are just what you need for a perfect fall (or any time) dessert

    http://www.etsy.com/listing/88423248/stoneware-ceramic-apple-bakers-speckle?utm_source=google&utm_medium=product_listing_promoted&utm_campaign=ceramics_and_pottery_mid&gclid=COSM14DuhLgCFU7hQgodkS0AbA

    who doesn’t like apples? A lil nutmeg a lil brown sugar a lil cimminin and you got yourself something what’ll turn even Paula Deen’s frown upside down

    happyfeet (4bf7c2)

  125. NaBr,

    Just curious, friend, did you vote for Obama ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  126. Elephant Stone (125),

    Nope, not either time.

    NaBr (a094a6)

  127. Don’t put NaBr on the spot E.S. Not everyone is eligible to vote.

    elissa (24b4c0)

  128. Oh good deal, to be in Austin in July sniffing some rancher’s pits.

    Wendy prolly won’t take the hint and be knee-capped.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  129. It is quite alright to disagree with NaBr, but nothing he has typed in this thread or others, suggests he would have ever voted for Obama.

    JD (b63a52)

  130. JD,

    It was a simple, politely worded question—nothing to get all “hall monitor” about.
    Plenty of people whom one would not expect to vote for Obama actually voted for Obama during these last two elections.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  131. sodium bromide has been used as a hypnotic, an anti-convulsant, and a sedative

    that is what the googles say

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  132. Patterico’s Pontifications » Gov. Perry Calls a New Session, ¿Que mas nos puedes explicar?, me resulta insterense esta informacion. Saludos.

    camaras para seguridad (f28b10)

  133. A tale of two Texans and how they dealt with unexpected pregnancies.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  134. 133- Food for thought for those still who still can.
    Thank You, DRJ.

    askeptic (b8ab92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.6600 secs.