That’s the Texas case — Wisconsin legislators did it in 2011. Wisconsin lawmakers aren't the first to flee
I’m actually curious whether that tactic could work this year — the Leg has to get this stuff passed before new governor is seated.
Technically it could have delayed it indefinitely.
So you’re saying that running away and hiding in another state, rather than doing the job you were elected and paid to do is perfectly acceptable to you?
Which proves what I said, both sides will take extreme measures to forward or protect their agenda. You defending what the Dems did is no different than me accepting what the Republicans are trying to do. Do not pretend you are morally superior. You are just on the opposite side of the same coin as I.
Others have explained how you are right but not in the way you think.
I will just point out that you are using the fallacy of tu quoque, likely because you realize there is no argument that what they are doing isn’t wrong.When logic fails, we often reach for a logical fallacy, even subconsciously. But, like all uses of that fallacy, it is easily debunked: Even if we held that these actions you described were worse, it wouldn’t matter, because two wrongs don’t make a right.
This case is even worse, though, because we don’t even agree that this thing is worse. The problem is that Republicans keep lowering the bar so much that there’s often not an equally bad thing the Democrats have done. But, for the fallacy of tu quoque to be convincing, the outrage has to match or surpass the outrage of the other side.
I very much hope that, in my life time, basic (remedial level) logical thinking courses will be required in school so that everyone in the country can recognize tu quoque well enough that it will no longer be an instinctual tactic. Because even I have to admit that people only use it because it works.
Absolute bullshit. One side is attempting to uphold democracy. The other is using underhanded tactics to harm the people of Wisconsin. Hint - the people you support are the second. The is no moral equivalency.
And this only confirms what I said. You cannot defend their actions, so you are changing the subject to who is or isn’t morally superior. You’re the one who seems to feel bad because your party is doing something immoral, and you need to assure yourself that Democrats are just as bad.
But none of this debunks anything in the OP. You could prove that Democrats are controlled by Satan himself, and it it still wouldn’t invalidate anything BPC said.
You would prefer us to argue about how bad an incident long past was, rather than debate the subject at hand.
I can see no defense for these actions by the Republicans. Can you?
Can you explain to me how running away and hiding in another state so as to avoid casting a vote is “upholding democracy”. I must of played hooky the day they taught that in civics 101.
I don’t feel bad nor do I think what they are attempting is immoral. I don’t want Evers to be able to get his agenda through nor do I want the many good things that Walker and the legislature accomplished during the last 8 years to be reversed or watered down.
I do admit that it is politics at it’s most hard ball, and cut throat at that. But it’s not immoral and the system allows for it. If it works as planned T will be neutered, his insane ideas will go nowhere, and being viewed as a failure he’ll be held to a single term as the people realize they made a mistake removing the best, most effective governor the state has ever had in the wake of their hissy fit over Trump.
I am fully aware that this could blow up in their face. Public opinion could turn savage on the Republicans, and if/when the majority is on the other side paybacks will be a mighty bitch. It is a huge political risk they are taking.
I realize my honesty on where I stand scores no points with you. ICCL. However, it is not my intent to irritate anyone.
They actually were trying to delay the vote on the anti-union Act 10. Of course pkbites has no problem with it since the bill specifically excluded law enforcement and firefighters from the stripping of collective bargaining rights from public employees.
This makes me sick. This is a deliberate undermining of the will of the people. Is there any way to prevent this?
No. Hell, no.
The peaceful transfer of power is a cornerstone of democracy. And it’s been a cornerstone of ours, going back to Adams stepping down when Jefferson won the 1800 election.
What we have here, in NC, in WI, in MI, is the GOP refusing to transfer power after losing an election. What the GOP is doing may violate no statutes, but it is most certainly a violation of first principles of how a democracy is supposed to work.
And there you have it - “When you go high, we go low”. The means aren’t particularly important, and it’s fine if they break denocratic norms, go against the spirit of democracy, or make the political system even more bitter, cutthroat, and unsustainable. What matters is the ends. What matters is that a conservative agenda passes, consequences be damned.
pkbites, is there any line you wouldn’t see as justifiably crossable in defense of the conservative cause, as long as it’s legal? Keep in mind that “what is legal” is exactly what the legislation is responsible for deciding.
It most certainly did affect me. I retired in 2007 after 25 years as a Deputy Sheriff. I then started a second career with another agency. I didn’t have to pay into the retirement system during my first career. Now I do. My health insurance was free the first time around. If I were to take it with my current department it would cost me.
I don’t have problem with either of those things. People in the private sector have to pay, why should I get a free ride at tax payers expense?
Weren’t the rules actually changed to prevent Governor Romney from appointing a Republican in the event that John Kerry won the presidency in 2004? I don’t remember a subsequent change.
I had to google it because I didn’t know what we were talking about and found the texas case first. This is also A Bad Look™, make no mistake, and it’s entirely legitimate to criticize it. That doesn’t magically make this move okay, though.
I don’t see that. The Republicans in the Legislature aren’t blocking Evers from taking office.
Rather, they seem to be reducing the powers granted to the Governor by statutes passed by the previous Legislature. As long as that is permitted under the state Constitution, they are not hindering the peaceful transfer of power. What the Legislature has previously granted to the Governor by statute can be taken away by statute.
And, pkbites point about electoral mandate is valid: the voters have elected the governor with a certain electoral mandate, but they’ve also elected the members of the two houses with a different mandate, directly opposed to that of the incoming Governor. Why is it undemocratic for them to do what is in their power to try to block the incoming Governor from carrying out his platform?
This really is the issue with divided government in the Congressional / Presidential (or Governor) system. Both branches of gouvernement can legitimately claim to have a democratic mandate and thus to block each other. That system only works as long as their is a commitment to compromise by the actors. If there is a breakdown in compromise, appeals to democracy can’t resolve the dispute.
The legislature’s mandate stems from the extreme gerrymandering of the WI legislature. More voters preferred Democratic candidates, yet Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers. This clearly does not reflect the will of the people. At least in MI the situation was addressed by having a referendum to change the state constitution to have an impartial panel with open meetings draw the districts. We’ll see how it works out, but it’s a promising start.
I recall the MA legislature messing with the interim Senate appointment process, that was wrong of Democrats to do it as well. Elections have consequences, but Republicans seem to think that only applies when Republicans win.
Who gives a shit about technically? Two weeks is not in the same league as two years. Two years is the minimum time this current issue will last, but it will probably last a lot longer.
Dems won the average assembly seat by 8 points yet the assembly seats will be 63 R - 36 D for the next two years. This current bill gives more power to that undemocratically elected body for those two years.
That one time you had to wait two week whole extra weeks to fuck the unions does not remotely balance the scales.
A clever headline and article in the LA Times shows how terrible the act of voting can be: California Republicans see what happens when more voters vote, and they don’t like it one bit
This is just one step away from that: while they aren’t blocking Evers from taking office, they are changing the laws to render the office as powerless as possible.
If they’re refusing to transfer the actual power, it’s not a transfer of power, peaceful or otherwise.
As has been noted multiple times in this thread already, a majority of the voters also voted for a Democratic legislature. Their mandate was undone by previous GOP gerrymandering.
There is no way one can truthfully say that the legislature has a popular mandate to restrict the incoming governor’s powers. The GOP has maintained control of the legislature by antidemocratic means, and it is bootstrapping that antidemocratic result to antidemocratically undo the un-gerrymanderable outcome of the gubernatorial election.
It’s probably a good thing that I didn’t say it did not affect you at all. I said that it stripped collective bargaining from all the public unions except law enforcement and firefighters. Would still be just as happy with it if your union no longer had the ability to bargain for the group?
I have always thought the retirement and health insurance perks were not “free” but part of the overall compensation package. That’s how it has always worked for me in the private sector, total compensation consists of salary+insurance benefits+any type of retirement package.
Agreed, just making sure everyone is on the same page as to what was going on.