Texas tampers with vote date - still fails

[The Brain]

Is this a general principle?

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

I see.

[Kleves]

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.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.

[merithyn]

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.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.

You can claim the same with filibustering.

[Razgovory]

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.

Uh, No.

[Jacob]

It's interesting to see where people draw the lines on procedural wrangling, chicanery, and general shenanigans when it comes to the democratic process.

Ultimately, there's no slippery slope here because the Texan Lt. Gov. fucked up, and next session the bill will get pulled. It was pretty much a one-off opportunity that was seized; causing a ruckus in the spectator seat at the legislature is not going to significantly change how decisions are made henceforth.

While you can find a technical difference if you'd like to, I personally don't think there's a huge substantial difference between, say, refusing to recognize a speaker or upholding spurious objections on one hand, and causing a ruckus for 15 minutes in the spectator seats to let the clock run out on the other. Both are part of the gamesmanship of the legislative process, and while I am sympathetic to the desire to have a more civilized and fair-minded approach, I don't see that happening in the current US climate.

[Berkut]

Indeed, and it is a line the Republicans had already crossed when they aborted the filibuster on some pretty stupid technicalities.

Really, talking about Planned Parenthood is not on topic in a discussion about closing abortion clinics?

They had already made it clear they had no care at all about the spirit of the process.

[Fate]

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.

They weren't avoiding a second special session. The second special session was going to be called regardless of the abortion vote outcome. Perry still has to pass two other measures - transportation and crime.

[Fate]

It's interesting to see where people draw the lines on procedural wrangling, chicanery, and general shenanigans when it comes to the democratic process.

Ultimately, there's no slippery slope here because the Texan Lt. Gov. fucked up, and next session the bill will get pulled. It was pretty much a one-off opportunity that was seized; causing a ruckus in the spectator seat at the legislature is not going to significantly change how decisions are made henceforth.

The bill is getting passed next session which starts July 1st. There's no avoiding this bill becoming law.

[Josquius]

Such a stupid system that filibustering is even a thing. Thank god the good guys won

[Razgovory]

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.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. But I don't think the filibuster is what stopped the vote from being taken on time, but instead the illegitimate disruptive actions of protestors. In that case, it at least makes a bit more sense to fudge the timestamp (although still wrong); after all, you probably see yourself as only correcting what would have been done but for the actions of others that prevent the democratic process.

Fudging the timestamp is a felony under Texas Law. It's called Fraud.  Shouting from the balcony is at best a misdemeanor, and since it was political speech, probably not illegal at all.

Actually Missouri used to do the same thing, before there were computers.  Because the our part time legislature could never get the budget in on the time required by the constitution, they simply unplugged the clocks at 11:55.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A clinic is sufficient. You're married to an ob/gyn right? Hopefully this shit is making her livid.

No, my wife actually has her specialty in Vascular Medicine (board certified by the ABVM) and Vascular Surgery (certified by VSB-ABS.) She's actually the one who has informed me to a small degree on the abortion issue. She's extremely pro-choice, but she has a general "aversion" to office based surgery and advises most of our friends and relatives to be very careful about submitting to any office based surgery. The reasons, to her, is that while accredited doctor's offices have safety records for their minor procedures equivalent to hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, the vast majority of offices are not accredited. That means they may be perfectly fine (and most of them are) but it means they could be similar to Gosnell's office. In particular aside from abortions she has concerns about dental office procedures  because dentists actually have more accidents and complications than you might realize and they are not even MDs and have no nurses on staff so are very ill-equipped to respond to them.

She's the one who pointed out to me that most regulations that were proposed here in Virginia (which were similar to the Texas regs) were about the same as what you'd see in Europe. But like I said, my policy proposal was Federal funding for abortions and moving them into outpatient surgical centers and hospitals so that you can increase our regulations to be more inline with the rest of the civilized world without decreasing access for women.

If you just do what Texas wants to do, you're just decreasing access, and that isn't good.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I should note I live in the same America you guys do, I have no illusions about Federal funding for abortions being politically acceptable. However, there is a reason we once had Federal funding for abortions and it was Nixon who set that up. It's because however much you spend it's a guaranteed return on investment. Fewer unwanted children, especially from lower income women, is by far a larger savings for society than whatever the government pays to provide abortions.

[CountDeMoney]

I should note I live in the same America you guys do, I have no illusions about Federal funding for abortions being politically acceptable.

That's good, because for a moment I thought you would've forgotten that Virginia is just as squirrelly about abortion as Texas is.

However, there is a reason we once had Federal funding for abortions and it was Nixon who set that up. It's because however much you spend it's a guaranteed return on investment. Fewer unwanted children, especially from lower income women, is by far a larger savings for society than whatever the government pays to provide abortions.

Shame Nixon's party melded with the mega churches, and now we can't tell the difference.

[Jacob]

The bill is getting passed next session which starts July 1st. There's no avoiding this bill becoming law.

Yeah, that was a typo - I should've written "passed" instead of "pulled".

[Admiral Yi]

Filibuster lady is quite easy on the eyes.