Yes. Again, your point in citing that was ?
I don’t think you are.
If you were, then you would not have said:
If a girl knees a guy trying to rape her, she has NOT, in fact, committed battery, because her act is self-defense and this negates the crime of battery.
My point in citing the law was to point out that those people were also guilty of a crime.
Sylmar - Yes
Okay, you don’t think I are unfamiliar with the law as regards self defense ? Ummm… I don’t know how to convince you of this Brick. Could you maybe just take my word that I’m not a lawyer and have never attended law school, or do you want a verifiable cite ? Brah.
OH! So there’s this legal concept of negation, where it’s okay to break a rule/law to prevent a greater harm?
Hot Shit! I’m so happy you pointed that out for me Brick. I’d have never figured that out on my own. I can see you must be highly regarded for your swift, analytical mind. Brah.
Hold on Brick, I’m still working on that cite for ya.
If you forward me your number I could have my Mom call you. She’s known me as long as anyone and can tell you I’m not a legal eagle.
Does she have to be sworn in or would a notarized statement be acceptable?
Bricker:
C’mon, man. I’m meeting you on your turf.
^ (Ducking at his keyboard) :eek: Where the fuck did all these Imperial Tie Fighters come from?
Which, no doubt, you were just about to show us with an actual citation, right? To be followed by a discussion of the relevance of said point to the law of special legislative sessions in Texas, right? Or was that going to be right after your explanation that a deadline isn’t really a deadline if it works against your party?
Do you realize you’ve become a parody of yourself?
“Not wearing enough”? Enough for what purpose?
Also, can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don’t develop because people become distracted…
Wait, are we talking about rape again?
Seeing Bricker get totally pwned in posts #241&242 was fucking awesome!
And then sylmar’s next reply totally made me Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
HAHA!
The legal pedant hoisted himself by his own petard!
Good times!
Fine by me. Here, go stand by the edge. . . Well, it may be more of a push.
Bo will be protected at the bottom of the quarry.
:smack:
Well, clearly I fail the fifth grade reading exam.
Sorry.
That was idiotic on my part.
So, SINCE you are unfamiliar with the law on self-defense, please take my word for it that in fact a girl kneeing her would-be rapist is not a crime.
But there is no self-defense response available to protesters who intentionally hindered an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.
In 1947, there doesn’t appear to have been a three-strikes-and-you’re out rule concerning digressions from relevant topics for filibuster. But the chair ruled that was the procedure and the Senate upheld the decision of the chair, creating that precedent.
So there doesn’t appear to be a specific precedent for a back brace, no. But your question seems to suggest that if there’s no precedent, the presiding officer cannot so rule. In fact, that’s not the truth: precedents are created by a ruling from the presiding officer upheld by the legislators.
I agree - that’s exactly what it was. But that’s the whole point of civil disobedience, isn’t it? Violate the law in an effort to call attention to a perceived injustice or wrong.
Texas law forbids intentionally hindering an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous
behavior or disturbance. The protesters in the observer’s gallery violated that law, undoubtedly to highlight what they perceived as the injustice of the chair’s behavior.
You’re doing great. 
But A) there’s plenty of precedent for senators being assisted by their fellow senators in much more hands-on ways than this, and B) even if Dewhurst CAN make a ruling against precedent, it doesn’t mean that it’s any less ridiculous or obviously biased than the rulings on germaneness. Seriously, neither the recent sonogram bill (where sonograms are required prior to abortions) nor the Roe v. Wade ruling are relevant to SB5? It takes a truly tortured (or, well, biased) view of germaneness to imagine that.
What’s more: Duncan didn’t even answer the question when it was put to him. When asked why she was getting a third strike when she’d only had two for germaneness, Duncan essentially told the protesting (er, inquiring) senators to sit down and shut up. “It’s not up for debate,” he said, over and over.
What’s even MORE: Supposing the presiding officer can do all these things. Whatever he wants. That DOESN’T mean it’s not extraordinarily unwise. They could have (and did, as of today) brought up the same bill (or, as I recall, they’re abandoning the omnibus bill and trying to pass it in parts, which I wholly support: they can have their primary wins and we can hopefully get rid of the more disgusting parts of the bill) in a second (and expensive) special session. There wouldn’t have been this level of outcry if they’d played by their own rules. They didn’t.
I mean, just ignoring Senator Van de Putte was something that could have had Duncan arrested by the sergeant at arms. The motion to adjourn, again, is a rising motion: it supercedes the others. Giving the floor to Estes when Watson was holding it? Again, technically and theoretically a presiding officer might be able to do it? Duncan’s explanation for this was basically “I said so.”
Yes, despite the claims that we were… what is it? Bussed down from Chicago? That one still makes me chuckle. Believe me, it’s easier to get a burnt orange T-shirt here than Chicago. 
But here’s my main points.
- The dings for “germaneness” were questionable at best.
- The warning for unasked help from another senator for her back brace was also highly questionable. Yes, the body voted on it. On strict party lines.
- Including this warning in the “germaneness” business was inappropriate or at least completely without precedent in the Texas Senate.
- Duncan’s attempts to act as presiding officer were hamfisted at best and consisted mainly of ignoring the rules that didn’t benefit him (incidentally, given that Senator Van de Putte is Senate President pro tem, why wasn’t SHE called up instead of Duncan to take over for Dewhurst? Oh, that’s right: she wouldn’t have ruled the way he did.)
- The crowd was pretty damned quiet and respectful as long as the rules were being followed and judged reasonably.
I may have had more, but someone in that unruly mob apparently had a cold, and now I do.
(And thank you. My law professor did say I was good at this. I did a better job with her, though, I think. I’m feeling kind of unfocused.)
ETA: Oh, and in the words of Republican Texas representative David Simpson: “How can they be expected to follow the rules if we don’t follow the rules?”
I had no doubt it wasn’t a “crime”. I posited that example to illustrate how ludicrous your assertion that the protesters were committing a crime actually was.
Let me walk you through this real simple, since you seem to be more than a litte frazzled by this issue.
Yes, I’m surethe protesters were in violation of the ordinance/rule/law you quoted. I’m also sure the Texas State House is chocker block full of video cameras to where they could identify every protester and have them arrested.
And some of the butt hurt Republican lawmakers were saying they were contemplating doing just that. But it won’t happen. Why?
Remember that little concept of “negation” we talked about above? Arrest any one of those protesters and the lawmakers are going to have some 'splaining to do about their actions. And they really don’t want to be embarassed any more than their own actions have already made them. They’re looking to bury this in the news cycle just as quickly as possible.
So with your obssesion in proving my ludicrous example ludicrous, you were looking at a leaf when you should’ve been looking at the forest for the tree falling down on you.
Now, just to keep the,“It’s a trap!!” theme floating, could you cackle maniacally and say,“Kill them all!”? ( Where’s Lute Skywalker when you need him?)
I see your point now.
Of course, there’s two different kinds of negation – a better example might have been a parent punching her child’s rapist after his arrest. There’s no legal justification for such an act, but it might well be politically infeasible to prosecute that parent for assault.
You’re right, of course – from a political standpoint, there’s effectively no chance of prosecution.
But… doesn’t the same analysis apply to the guy who changed the time?
I’m still not persuaded. I grant it’s a somewhat strict view of “germane,” but here is the text of SB5. In what specific way is a sonogram relevant to it?
And?
As i understand it, there was no third strike for wandering off topic. There was a single violation of the rules of decorum, which alone is sufficient to end the filibuster.
No argument there at all. I think the behavior was absolutely unwise.
If you believe the protesters were justified in preventing an injustice (The House’s departure from the rules to push through their agenda), then no, the time keeper was being complicit in perpetrating that injustice.
And I realize that’s my opinion with no reference to actual laws/rules/and or regulations that would negate or support it.