Oh, by the way, I eagerly await your proposal to abolish the entire US Marshall’s service. (or at least the fugitive division)
I mean, after all, being a fugitive and evading the jurisdiction of the court is just another word for a vigorous defense.
That would be a criminal act, as opposed to not attended a senate session, which is not.
What crime are they committing again? How much jail time are they looking at?
one’s contempt of court, one’s contempt of a legislative body. real good distinction, there.
One is a violation of the law. One is not. Pretty simple.
no, contempt of court is actually a violation of a court order.
What are the statutory consequences for violating a court order?
I’m not aware of any.
True.
Please cite the court order the senators are violating.
courts are not the only bodies granted the power to regulate and control behavior via contempt actions.
Denying quorum is an age old legislative maneuver. Bricker cited a case in living memory where the Republicans did it in the US congress (although they were able to be dragged…literally…back in that case). IIRC someone mentioned Abraham Lincoln jumped out of a window to deny quorum.
This is not far different from the filibuster.
As a concept I am fine with both (filibuster or quorum denying). Our Founding Fathers were aware of the peril of a tyranny of the majority. Both these methods help avoid that.
Where it would become a problem (as it did in the US Senate) is when someone uses those means to block pretty much everything.
Their use should be rare and a big deal and a last resort for a one party to stop something they find utterly intolerable.
So, if Wisconsin Dems said, “Fuck you Wisconsin, we’re staying in Illinois till the next election” then yeah…that would be terrible. Also pretty sure that lot would be losing their jobs in short order.
However, for them to say, “On this issue we will not bend further than we have. We capitulated on the budget items but will not tolerate killing the unions” is fine. It is a stance on a single issue of great importance to them. Same as a filibuster was (traditionally) used. A rare thing and a thing only invoked when it was a Big Deal[sup]tm[/sup].
If the Wisconsin Dems refused to allow any business of any sort because of sour grapes I’d agree with you.
If they bail to avoid one specific issue of primary importance to them then fine.
It is legal and part of the democratic process laid down in law. Has been part of the process since the founding of the country.
Repeat after me…
No
crime
has
been
committed.
The senators, when they return or are caught, face absolutely no sanctions or fines or prison time.
The arrest warrant is part of a Call of the House. It means the legislators can be forcibly dragged back to the chamber if they are caught.
There are no legal penalties whatsoever associated with this.
They are in contempt of nothing.
This has been done before in the US. Not hugely common but certainly not unheard of. Point to any of the quorum dodgers getting busted for that action.
What’s the purpose of having a supermajoritarian quorum for budget matters if it can’t ever be used tactically? If it’s not meant to be used in this way (and I grant that that’s probably the case), it’s a pretty glaring structural fault. Requiring No votes to show up in order for the vote to be valid is a recipe for events like this. (And it’s possible to create the same requirement for the number of yes votes needed without having a quorum. There could be a requirement that budget matters must receive the approval of more than 50% of senators present and more than 30% (the 3/5 quorum currently in effect divided in half) of the total number of senators.)
no, it wasn’t intended by the founding father. congress has authority to arrest yo ass wherever you are in this country.
what are the penalties for failure to show up for a court hearing? hmm?
Instead of pointing you to Post #12 I will just re-post it here for your convenience:
This is not a court hearing.
Look…
If they have committed a crime for which penalties can accrue cite them. Shouldn’t be hard to find if that is the case. This is not the first time this has happened. (Has happened numerous times both in states and at the federal level.)
this is the same mechanism under which pre-verdict defendants are hauled back into court when they flee the jurisdiction.
there are probably extra penalties tagged on by statute, but the fact that the court has inherent power to compel appearance isn’t changed by that.
There is no denying that legislatures have the power to compel attendance. It is called a “Call of the House”.
The procedures are laid down and yes, if the marshals or troopers or whatever catch you they will (literally if they have to) drag you back to the chamber.
Thing is they have to catch you.
In the case of Wisconsin the Senators are out of the state in Illinois beyond Wisconsin jurisdiction. Illinois will not (indeed cannot) arrest them because no crime has been committed. Wisconsin law enforcement has no jurisdiction in Illinois. If they tried there’d be a shit storm (and it would amount to kidnapping on the part of the Wisconsin troopers).
In the case of federal legislators the equivalent would be to flee to another country (since in their case the marshals have jurisdiction everywhere in the US so could drag them back from any state they were hiding in). However, if they were in Canada then the marshals couldn’t do shit about it and Canada will not arrest them either (because no crime was committed).
Even if caught (or not) no crime has been committed. No punishments ensue.
It is all about compelling attendance. If they can’t manage it then…well…nothing.
If one Dem shows up, the Repubs will jam the anti union bill through. That is all it takes.
If the Dem feels strongly enough about the union busting. just showing up will harm their constituents. If they are representing a group that does not want to allow Walker to crush the working people, they have to stay away. Showing up will cause the bill they don’t want, to be passed.
There have been polls showing the people do not want the bill., Who does Walker represent, the people or corporate power. The one in the wrong is Walker.