Wisconsin Democrats

ThickMeatJacker

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Posts
274
Media
9
Likes
68
Points
113
Location
Midwest USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
They WERE representing the interests of the people who voted for them by leaving the state. I think their constituents(aka voters) were very pleased with their attempt to stop this heinous legislation.


As one of those voters in question I can tell you that I support and still support my State Senator who did his best to keep a piece of shit legislation from being past.

I do find it odd that the trolls won't respond to my post.... They must be intimidated by things like FACTS.

And yes I would defend your right to say what ever you want, even if it is stupid and baseless. It doesn't have to mean that I will listen to your bull shit.

The GOP thinks that the only people who can use parliamentary proceedure is them. Like skirting open meeting laws to pass bull shit legislation. If someone else uses it, they need to be arrested. Of course what the GOP did was illegal and what the Dems did was not.
 
Last edited:

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Show me where in the State Constitution of Wisconsin it says that "if an elected official of the State Senate disagrees with parliamentary proceedings he can NOT leave the State.

Exactly, exactly. Walker's orchestrated retaliation (while the public was locked out, incidentally) is what is being protested as unconstitutional.
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
Stop acting like legislators never flee the state to avoid quorums, I did short goggle search and in recent history happened in Texas and New Mexico and even Mr. Lincoln as a member of the Illinois state governing body took his fellow Whigs and and fled for a time and you know how the Repbs like to point out that Abe was god of the Rebp. party.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Stop acting like legislators never flee the state to avoid quorums, I did short goggle search and in recent history happened in Texas and New Mexico and even Mr. Lincoln as a member of the Illinois state governing body took his fellow Whigs and and fled for a time and you know how the Repbs like to point out that Abe was god of the Rebp. party.
Licoln actually jumped out of a window in order to keep from voting.
Abraham Lincoln Jumped Out of a Second-Story Window to Stop a Vote -- Daily Intel
 

BF2K

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
221
Media
3
Likes
68
Points
273
Location
SE of Paris - won't say how far.
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Robert's rules of order regarding a Quorum - why did they leave the State of Wisconsin if they were "legally" not attending a session of the Wisconsin Senate? Call of the house (compelled attendance)

The call of the house procedure may be used if necessary to obtain a quorum in legislatures and other assemblies that have the legal power to compel the attendance of their members. The procedure does not exist in ordinary societies, since voluntary associations have no coercive power. The call of the house "is a motion that unexcused absent members be brought to the meeting under arrest." The call of the house procedure is governed by the rules of the assembly, which may provide that one-third, one-fifth, or some other number less than a majority present may order a call of the house by majority vote. Under Robert's Rules, when a quorum is not present, the motion takes precedence over every motion except that to adjourn. But "if the rule allows the call to be moved while a quorum is actually present (for the purpose of obtaining a greater attendance), the motion at such times should rank only with questions of privilege, should require a majority vote for adoption, and, if rejected, may not be renewed while a quorum is present."[8]
When a call of the house is ordered, Robert's Rules provides that the clerk should call the roll of members and then call the names of absentees, "in whose behalf explanations of absence can be made and excuses can be requested." Following this, the doors are locked and no member is permitted to leave, and "the sergeant-at-arms, chief of police, or other arresting officer is ordered to take into custody absentees who have not been excused from attendance and bring them before the house," done on warrant signed by the presiding officer and attested by the clerk. Once arrested members are brought in, "they are arraigned separately, their explanations are heard, and on motion, they can be excused with or without penalty in the form of a payment of a fee." A member may not vote or be recognized by the chair for any purpose until he has paid the fee assessed against him.[8]
Once a call of the house has been ordered, "no motion is in order, even by unanimous consent, except motions relating to the call." However, motions to adjourn or dispense with further proceedings under the call can be entertained "after a quorum is present or the arresting officer reports that in his opinion a quorum cannot be entertained." Adjournment terminates the call of the house.[8]
In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of February 25, 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bring cots into the Senate cloakrooms in preparation for an all-night session over campaign finance reform for congressional elections. Bryd's motion was approved 45-3 and arrest warrants were signed for all 46 Republicans. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K. Giugni and his staff searched the Capitol's corridor and Senate office buildings for absent Senators, and after checking several empty offices, spotted Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. After a cleaning woman gave a tip that Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon was in his office, Giugni opened the door with a skeleton key. Packwood attempted to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two assistants pushed it open. Packwood was "carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers" and sustained bruised knuckles.[9]
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Robert's rules of order regarding a Quorum - why did they leave the State of Wisconsin if they were "legally" not attending a session of the Wisconsin Senate? Call of the house (compelled attendance)

The call of the house procedure may be used if necessary to obtain a quorum in legislatures and other assemblies that have the legal power to compel the attendance of their members. The procedure does not exist in ordinary societies, since voluntary associations have no coercive power. The call of the house "is a motion that unexcused absent members be brought to the meeting under arrest." The call of the house procedure is governed by the rules of the assembly, which may provide that one-third, one-fifth, or some other number less than a majority present may order a call of the house by majority vote. Under Robert's Rules, when a quorum is not present, the motion takes precedence over every motion except that to adjourn. But "if the rule allows the call to be moved while a quorum is actually present (for the purpose of obtaining a greater attendance), the motion at such times should rank only with questions of privilege, should require a majority vote for adoption, and, if rejected, may not be renewed while a quorum is present."[8]
When a call of the house is ordered, Robert's Rules provides that the clerk should call the roll of members and then call the names of absentees, "in whose behalf explanations of absence can be made and excuses can be requested." Following this, the doors are locked and no member is permitted to leave, and "the sergeant-at-arms, chief of police, or other arresting officer is ordered to take into custody absentees who have not been excused from attendance and bring them before the house," done on warrant signed by the presiding officer and attested by the clerk. Once arrested members are brought in, "they are arraigned separately, their explanations are heard, and on motion, they can be excused with or without penalty in the form of a payment of a fee." A member may not vote or be recognized by the chair for any purpose until he has paid the fee assessed against him.[8]
Once a call of the house has been ordered, "no motion is in order, even by unanimous consent, except motions relating to the call." However, motions to adjourn or dispense with further proceedings under the call can be entertained "after a quorum is present or the arresting officer reports that in his opinion a quorum cannot be entertained." Adjournment terminates the call of the house.[8]
In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of February 25, 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bring cots into the Senate cloakrooms in preparation for an all-night session over campaign finance reform for congressional elections. Bryd's motion was approved 45-3 and arrest warrants were signed for all 46 Republicans. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K. Giugni and his staff searched the Capitol's corridor and Senate office buildings for absent Senators, and after checking several empty offices, spotted Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. After a cleaning woman gave a tip that Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon was in his office, Giugni opened the door with a skeleton key. Packwood attempted to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two assistants pushed it open. Packwood was "carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers" and sustained bruised knuckles.[9]
That's why they went to Illinois where the State of Wisconsin had absolutely no power to compel them to do anything. I think they were smart. If you don't like what the Wisconsin 14 did, don't vote for them when they are up for re-election, work against them, vote for their re-call. I'm not from Wisconsin but I sent the Wisconsin Democratic Committee a small donation to help with their re-call efforts.
 
Last edited:

itsthepopei

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Posts
486
Media
9
Likes
1,201
Points
273
Location
Atlanta
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That depends on who ultimately wins this fight and gets to write the history. Yes, it's that real, that serious.
As for "sad corporatist talking points" (spoonfed by rightwing political/media whores) that's all she's got.

As the bill was shot down by a judge
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
That depends on who ultimately wins this fight and gets to write the history. Yes, it's that real, that serious.
As the bill was shot down by a judge
Well I was really making broader reference to similar actions being advanced by Republicans in state legislatures all across the country. This coordinated effort is designed to strip union workers of their collective bargaining rights nationwide, effectively killing off the unions. It's happening largely under the radar while all the attention is being focused on Wisconsin. The agenda is to eliminate unions entirely, among the largest contributors to Democrats, giving near total campaign finance advantage to corporate interests, thereby guaranteeing only their candidates get elected. The end game is to insure a complete Republican/Teabag/Corporatist power monopoly in government, at the local, state and federal levels.

To be accurate, Judge Sumi has only issued a restraining order at this point to prevent "publishing the bill", which is required before it can be enacted. She has not "shot it down", though it seems clear she believes the action taken by the Republicans in the WI Senate was in violation of the "Open Meetings" law. She scheduled a hearing for 3/29, and now it appears the Department of Justice has entered the fray, saying she doesn't have the authority to reach into the legislative process before a law is published. The plot continues to unfold daily with many twists and turns, and I expect this will go on for some time. We'll have to wait to see what happens and who ultimately wins. If the people don't wake up to what's happening in other states, get involved, and keep up serious pressure, sadly and disturbingly I expect it will be the Corporatists.

Like I said a few days ago:
As far as events in Wisconsin are concerned, it will ultimately be up to the courts to decide whether the Democrats' sick days or the Republicans' ramrodding the measure through without a quorum was unlawful or unconstitutional.
Stay tuned . . . .


p.s. To quote another poster, click the "quote" button at the bottom of each post. You can then delete the bits you don't want to include. If you want to quote more than one poster, click the multi-quote button to the right of the quote button. That way we know who you're responding to, and we can distinguish your words from theirs. Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
To BF2K: Wow, your rambling disseratation on Robert's Rules of Order was not only insufferably long, it was completely irrelevant. Why do you not respond directly to questions put to you, or to challenges made by myself and other posters that factually disprove every point you make? That's a rhetorical question, meaning we already know the answer. The truth is, you have no facts to back up anything you say, only blind ideology and extreme partisan political bias, spoonfed to you by rightwing propagandists and media whores, which for you render any recognition of the truth not only irrelevant, but undesireable.

The question was:
Can you cite any provisions in either the Wisconsin or US Constitutions that would classify a legislator's absence as a violation of rules or unconstitutional?
I'll go further -- can you find any such prohibition in state or federal law or in Wisconsin State Senate rules?

Well, can you???

Here was another question/challenge posed to you which you failed to respond to in that same post, which obliterates a whole string of your made-up talking points:
How does one vote "not present" in the Senate? . . . . .
There are other points that follow that question you could respond to if you'd rather. Or you could respond to any of the other questions and challenges posed to you by other posters. Or you could just admit you are wrong about everything you've posted so far and you don't know what you're talking about. That is, you could if you had any integrity
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Hey, has anyone else heard that members of the police union would be exempt from the "budget balancing" measures Gov.Walker is seeking?

Yes. There are three Unions that were spared from the collective bargaining stripping because they backed Walker during his election process. The Police union was one of them, as well as the Fire Department and one other that I can't remember at this time. More proof that the action was nothing more than strategic political posturing and has nothing to do with balancing the budget as originally lied about.
 

Who_Dun_It

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Posts
218
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
That's exactly how it looks Redwyvre, big money interests have bought their way in via campaign funding and their newly elected lap dogs are now doing their bidding.