That part actually makes sense, to be honest, at least under the terms of the law.
A student ID isn’t provided by the state but by the university system, so it’s not really an acceptable form of ID.
There is no special “disabled veterans ID” in the state of Texas, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from. Disabled and honorably discharged vets can get a free driver’s license or Texas ID. But to get those, the state of Texas needs to make sure they fulfill any other eligibility requirements.
Active military can always use their photo IDs.
Why is a CHL ok? Getting a Texas CHL does forces you to provide numerous proofs of identity to the state during the application process, unlike a student ID card. The documentation requirements are tougher than getting a driver’s license. Why shouldn’t that be valid?
So, I’m not going to give Texas a hard time on this aspect of it.
The mere fact of a Voter ID law, on the other hand, is a load of Grade A, Texas sized bullshit.
Joking aside, we are taught in CHL classes that carrying a concealed weapon is not permitted at polling places. Nor at schools, public sporting events, and a long list of other places.
I wish that too, because the fetuses aborted late term are almost always very wanted, and I know it would bring their parents a great deal of joy to have them back. Late term abortions are terrible tragedies, where something has gone catastrophically wrong.
Then I wish that their wife (because it’s always a "nice guy with an opinion, amirite?) would have a pregnancy that was killing her, and the fetus is nonviable, and they have to watch as the woman they love dies slowly and in great pain in order to bring a ‘baby’ into the world that will never live outside the womb. And I want a priest to stand there and explain why a late term abortion is murder, but the painful death of a full-grown woman with family and friends and a whole life is just meaningless collateral damage, and that all this is God’s will, and he loves us.
Bonus points if the priest belongs to a religion you don’t follow.
eta: sorry!! I know I said quit arguing about abortion, but this asshole!! sorry guys.
It’s beyond cavil that any transgression of the rules is addressable by a point of order.
And Rule 4.01, as you note, requires the senator to stand in place, which means no sitting, leaning, etc. Rule 4.06 provides that when a senator is called to order by the chair or another senator, they may not continue unless the point of order is decided in their favor.
I take that to mean that three transgressions of wandering off topic are required, but only ONE transgression of putting on a back brace is required, since that action violates 4.01 as interpreted by various historical rulings.
Any decision of the presiding officer is appealable to the body. If the body felt that the presiding officer failed to recognize a senator asking for the floor, then a point of order is …er… in order. That’s a preferential, non-debatable motion.
I agree, I think.
But of course, the spectators shouting so loudly in an effort to stop the vote ALSO committed a crime, did they not? § 38.13. “A person commits an offense if he intentionally hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.”
What interpretation of various historical rulings? It is my understanding that (as argued Tuesday night against the ruling re: the back brace assistance) that sometimes Senator’s were assisted by being passed ice chips and candy during their filibuster and in 1970 another Senator was assisted when he was surrounded by fellow Senators in order to provide privacy so he could pee in a bucket.
If we are going to be overly pedantic about violations of decorum of the chamber, I would say peeing in a bucket takes the cake over being assisted with a back brace.
Yes, but one bone of contention is when the vote actually started. If it started before midnight like Spaw says, stopping the clock was proper (or even if improper in this instance negates the mens rea for a crime). At the same time that Republicans crowded around Spaw to cast their votes, Democrats were supposedly running forward with their cellphones raised trying to show that it was already after midnight. Stopping the clock at midnight is okay, but starting the clock after midnight is a no-no, and knowingly altering the records if the vote actually didn’t start until after midnight would be a crime. Frankly, the whole thing was such a cluster-f I don’t know if anybody knows or can prove what happened either way, but the democrats supposedly agreed to drop the whole date issue when Dewhurst agreed that he couldn’t sign the bill, and I doubt the current DA has the political clout to pursue an investigation, so that’s probably the end of it.
If correct, maybe. But I’d like to see a citation for the claim that it doesn’t matter when the vote finishes – only when it begins. I’m not an expert on parliamentary procedure and I’m not able to spend a great deal of time researching the matter, but I note that this was apparently a special session of the senate, and the Texas State Senate rules state:
"Article III, Section 40 of the Constitution reads as follows:
“When the Legislature shall be convened in special session, there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the Governor calling such session, or presented to them by the Governor, and no such session shall be of longer duration than 30 days.”
Nothing there about starting the play before the clock. At the end of 30 days, the session ends. Lights out, team off the field, start sweeping up the stands.
How very reassuring to know that this cruel and unjust act might be perfectly legal. Truly, a load off my mind. Dare we hope that it is constitutional as well? That would make it all peachy-keen!
His point is that he is, has been, and always will be a nitpicking asshole who likes to argue just to be a dick and he makes this point frequently with gusto. Oh he’ll argue any old point to be a jackass but give him a chance to defend some dumb republicanesque bullshit and he’ll never disappoint. I find if you read his posts with Cartman’s voice they’re far more entertaining and it helps give them all the due consideration they deserve. Naturally YMMV.
A purely academic question, as it happens, because Gov Goodhair is going to call another session and they are going to pass this piece of shit, period. The “victory” was entirely symbolic except for its effect of focusing attention on the situation, which is a worthy and needful thing, in and of itself. That, and the reassurance that the spirit of the Blessed Molly is alive and well in the land.
Its a classic example of a phallic victory, the pricks will win the battle but lose the war.
Except it doesn’t, as far as I can tell from the notes in the Senate rules. Do you have cites of various historical rulings in Texas where such an action has ended the filibuster?
Examples were cited on Tuesday of senators helping other senators relieve themselves into wastebaskets, of senators giving senators ice chips so they wouldn’t dehydrate, of senators giving senators across the aisle cough drops. I haven’t seen a single cite of a filibuster being ended by anything like a back brace or even being touched by another senator. None were brought up by either side on Tuesday.
Absolutely it is. The presiding officer disregarded the point of order when it was brought up. And when it was brought up again, and when it was brought up again.
And may be punished with up to 48 hours’ imprisonment. Yes. I won’t deny that.
The offense happened subsequent to all that fuckery (possibly not a legal term), though. Not legally justifiable, but after thirteen hours of meretricious calls by Dewhurst and outright rulebreaking by Duncan, the crowd had had enough.
Would it have been more appropriate within the rules of decorum to wait quietly outside and bring suit later? Yes. More legal? Yes. But when the rules of decorum and the rules of the Senate were broken so appallingly, so blatantly, the crowd felt morally if not legally justified.
I would, at that point, call it civil disobedience.
If Duncan hadn’t screwed the pooch like he did, I would have called it inappropriate, even douchey behavior. More than once there were elements in the gallery crowd who got riled up at this or that motion, and throughout the thirteen hours before Dewhurst’s final call, they were shushed by the rest. No one wanted the gallery cleared. No one wanted to interrupt the process. Well, probably not no one; the majority of us, though.
Can I just say that although I often disagree with your conclusions I’m feeling rather perky that I can debate the legal points of this with you? My God, it’s like I know what I’m talking about.
And since it’s been a whole day since I re-watched the testimony, I’m having to go by my memory. But I don’t THINK they ever actually made a motion to end the filibuster. There was a motion for the previous question at one point, and that MIGHT have been to end the filibuster, but things had gotten tangled beyond recognition at that point. I think half the senators thought the final vote was on whether to end the filibuster and the other half thought it was to vote on the bill itself, because Duncan was unclear. I thiiiink the final vote was on the previous question, but I’d want to read a transcript.
Either way, though, the (highly debatable) breach of decorum doesn’t count as a digression from the filibuster no matter how you slice it.
sorry guys.
