Texas tampers with vote date - still fails

[Razgovory]

Screaming your head off in a public place is usually the offence of disturbing the peace.

Well you can easily see where we could be heading off a slippery slope here.  As soon as you make it ok to haul off people because they are being unpleasant in the gallery you might as well get rid of it.

How is that a slippery slope?

Galleries are to observe lawmakers in action.  If you want to have a demonstration you do it outside the building.

Where do you go when you want to fabricate time stamps?

[merithyn]

Do you have a link to that?  All I can get from Meri's articles is that the screamers in the gallery were forced to leave and 50 people ended up being arrested, whether from the outside group or inside being unclear.  Not clear to me why the inside screamers would be forced to leave if they were doing nothing illegal.  Also boggles the mind that I could walk in to the Texas legislature and scream my head off without breaking the law.

Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?

[Admiral Yi]

Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?

It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all.  So clearly the second.

[merithyn]

Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?

It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all.  So clearly the second.

I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.

I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.

But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.

I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.

But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.

And I answered.  If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.

[Barrister]

Which is more "undemocratic", Yi? The yelling in the cheap seats to avoid the vote, or the lying that the vote took place on time?

It turns out that the first one is not undemocratic at all.  So clearly the second.

I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.

I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.

But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.

If a fillibuster is a valid tactic, then so are tactics to try and force a vote.

[The Brain]

I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.

I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.

But I admit to bias, which is why I'm asking you.

And I answered.  If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.

Is this a general principle?

[OttoVonBismarck]

You say that as if the state - in particular, the state of TEXAS - actually:

a) Cares about the health of these women
b) Wants to fix access problems
c) Has any interest whatsoever in preventing poor women from having children (See: Valmy's post)

I made no comment on what Texas is doing. I don't believe good policy has to be hijacked by other concerns.

[Valmy]

And I answered.  If in fact there is no law against disrupting a vote by screaming from the gallery in Texas, it's a legitimate legislative tactic and not undemocratic.

I guess I disagree.  Even if something is legal it does not mean it is democratic and should be done. 

However the main point in my mind is that the leadership totally failed to account for the fact there was passionate opposition to their bill somehow and bungled it.  Then they tried to break the law to cover their incompetence and then whined about it pathetically.  Which is the sort of leadership I have grown to expect from them.

[Valmy]

You say that as if the state - in particular, the state of TEXAS - actually:

a) Cares about the health of these women
b) Wants to fix access problems
c) Has any interest whatsoever in preventing poor women from having children (See: Valmy's post)

I made no comment on what Texas is doing. I don't believe good policy has to be hijacked by other concerns.

Way too much is done on pure ideology and not with good policy and practical considerations in mind.  Definitely not unique to Texas but frustrating.  This is actually probably the voters of Texas' fault though, they are really demanding ideological purity without regards to results these days.

[Berkut]

That sounds like something Bolsheviks might do...

Exactly.  Both are undemocratic.  Yet it seems only one is objectionable.

Indeed, I was wondering why you only found one objectionable.

And it is the one that does not actually involve the elected representatives consciously and actively forging the results of a vote.

Curious.

[Admiral Yi]

Is this a general principle?

Without thinking through every possible ramification I'll say yes.

[Kleves]

I don't know that I agree that it's not undemocratic in general. However, in this instance, given the shenanigans by the Texas Senate to force the vote, I can see it actually being a valid tool for the Democratic process. It doesn't seem as though the Texas Senate acted in good faith toward the end there in multiple ways, which means that I can understand - and even support - the actions of those in the cheap seats.

You think screaming down your opponents in order to disrupt a vote that you're going to lose is a valid tool of the democratic process? Do you really believe that you would feel this way if the law had been one you support, and the protestors people you oppose? For example, let's say the bill was going to expand access to abortion for poor women, but religious protestors were so disruptive that the vote couldn't be held. Would you think that was a valid action for them to take because they couldn't defeat the bill democratically?

I cannot, however, see any possible way that the Senate faking the time of the vote in order to get it to pass in a positive light.

They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.

[merithyn]

You think screaming down your opponents in order to disrupt a vote that you're going to lose is a valid tool of the democratic process? Do you really believe that you would feel this way if the law had been one you support, and the protestors people you oppose? For example, let's say the bill was going to expand access to abortion for poor women, but religious protestors were so disruptive that the vote couldn't be held. Would you think that was a valid action for them to take because they couldn't defeat the bill democratically?

I already admitted to bias. I'm not sure what more you want from me. In this particular case, and this particular state, I could see this scenario happening either way. As it is, it appears that while decorum was disturbed, the law was not broken. The same cannot be said for what the elected officials did.

They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.

Democracy ended a long time ago in Texas. The gerrymandering that takes place there is legendary, and I say this as a resident of the great state of Illinois. This is an example of what's going on, not an exception.

The deadline was important, and these "gentlemen" failed. But that wasn't what got to me. What got to me was that they then attempted to lie about it, and in doing so, break the law. Elected officials... breaking the law... to get their way....

[frunk]

They apprently missed a deadline by literally a couple of minutes. Fudging the time stamp in order to avoid having to call a new session to pass a bill you have already demonstrated that you have the votes for is wrong (and maybe a crime), but I don't think it signals the end of democracy as we know it.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a case of the normal legislative process causing things to run over.  If you allow filibustering and someone is actively employing it shouldn't be a case of "ok, you just have to filibuster until midnight to stop it" and then hold the vote after that anyway.