Fuck you, Texas Republicans

Listen to yourself. Elected legislators passed the bill. You admit that Texas voters will re-elect those legislators.

How is that anything other than representative democracy?

It’s not rule by fiat. It’s rule you don’t like.

How did you feel about California’s Prop 8? That was a direct popular vote – the ultimate democratic expression, right? Did you cheer when it was passed, or did you cheer when it was overturned?

At least have the guts to tell the truth. You have no great love for democracy – you have a great love for getting laws passed you like. If it’s by democratic means, that’s great. But if democracy fails to deliver your preferred results, then somehow it becomes ill-advised.

At least be honest about it.

And therein lies the difficulty many people are having with this national coordinated, teavangelical priority to push legislation restricting the availability of abortion out of existence to the exclusion of addressing other, far more pressing issues.

This was not the raison de etre their constituents sent them to the capitol for ( Check various polls for verification).

So why weren’t they honest about their *real *priorities? It would have cost them votes to more moderate candidates.

Voters will go into the next election with a very real sense of what the GOP’s actual priorities are.

But, that applies to everybody.

I don’t agree. It certainly does not apply to me.

All the more reason to recognize the limitations of democracy.

Personally, I like representational democracy with a strong and politically independent judiciary working under a clear constitution, i.e. with dampening layers to keep the state from swinging wildly in any particular direction. To that end, the constitution should be as free as possible of any mystical elements. I’m a tad dismayed the preamble to the Canadian Charter refers to Canada as “founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”, but fortunately Section 2 says “it’s okay, we don’t take it that seriously.”

I expect there will be an immediate injunction barring enforcement of all or some part of law, just like in WI.

I believe the ASC and hospital admitting privileging requirements will stall in the courts as they have in Mississippi and WI. In theory, restrictions can not place an undue burden or greatly reduce access. Shutting down all but five clinics in a state as large as Texas will be a dramatic reduction in access. Plus, the whole requirement of pharmaceutical induced abortions (aka ‘medical abortions’) having to be administered in ASCs over two to three days is pretty stupid on it’s face, it will be pretty hard to come up with any credible medical justification any court with a shred of integrity could believe has any merit. (I hope)

Video from after it was passed. It’s not as bad as some protesters are saying. but it’s still pretty depressing how quickly the police jump to excessive force now. I could see how the protesters were being childish, but they didn’t even announce that anyone who stayed was about to receive “Texas justice.”

And a pictures of the the guy they smashed into the floor.

That is a lie.

The Burnt Orange Report (which I’d bet has a bunch of lawyer making contributions) has a piece on the the lawsuits that will soon be filed against the latest abomination.

In other Texas Republican Asshole news, one of Governor Rick’s recent vetoes (or is that vetos?)is being scrutinized.

Perry has decided he’s gotten about as much as he could out of the governorship. So he’ll move on to his Presidency (ha!) or a career in punditry. The anti-abortion bill was a last hurrah–and an attempt to spur his national career. Really, all this “pro-life” fervor is new to him. Although other Repugs will also benefit, as his abdication stirs up the political scene. Or will they? They also made a bunch of Texas women (and smart Texas men) really, really mad…

Democracy doesn’t work, unless all you’re concerned about is popularity.

That’s what the dampening Bryan Eckers mentioned is for: you need to give the sheep a voice when the wolves are voting on dinner.

Of course, democracy usually involves four sheep and a wolf voting on dinner, not four wolves and a sheep; because IRL the sheep outnumber the wolves and democracy is the only defense they’ve got.

Why were the rules different for Wendy Davis than for Ted Cruz? He was allowed to drink water and speak off topic.

Different venue, different rules.

Because the U.S. Senate and the Texas Senate are two different bodies, each of which has the authority to make its own rules.

He also had to sit down. What a wimp.

Perhaps because he wasn’t doing a real filibuster. Just a bit of performance art & free airtime for his campaign for the presidential nomination.

Always a good chance to repeat a Republican staffer’s comment that Wendy Davis has more balls than Cruz…

Ah, thanks. I didn’t realize it was a different venue.

Or perhaps because the US Senate and the Texas legislature are two entirely different bodies with entirely different rules.

Or maybe because Cruz is a man, and we men take care of our own. Am I right, guys?

Now go fix me a turkey pot pie.

You hang in there,** BB**. Change is coming to Texas, the handwringing is on the wall. These are all rear-guard actions, and, sooner or later, all the gerrymandering, all the tricks, will come to naught. I fully support all the lefty-liberals of my native state! From waaaay up here.

And if that fails, for some reason, well, just keep in mind that you would be amazed at how many transplanted Texans are thriving here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Baja Canada.

Could we kindly trouble y’all to move back just long enough to vote for Wendy Davis for Governor next year? Won’t take but a moment, and you can be back north the day after. Moochies grassias, seniors.