A group of Republican politicians are in hiding — and US police have been sent to track them down

[mr friendly guy]

seems like an easy way to subvert democratic processes

A group of Republican politicians are in hiding — and US police have been sent to track them down
By Bridget Judd with wires
Posted about an hour ago

A rogue group of politicians are missing in action — and the police are hot on their trail.

It's an unlikely game of cat and mouse, but one that has found itself unfolding in the US state of Oregon, where 11 Republican senators have gone into hiding.

The political fugitives fled the State Capitol last week in order to deprive it of enough legislators to lawfully operate, in a bid to block a vote on a landmark climate plan.

The climate plan was expected to pass under the Democrat-controlled Senate (if you can't beat them, flee them).

But with things at a standstill until they return, state police have been deployed to track them down.

How did this happen?
A cap-and-trade climate plan is at the centre of the unusual stoush.

It aims to dramatically lower Oregon's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by encouraging businesses to switch to green technology — and unsurprisingly, it's not without controversy.

Minority Republicans are concerned the proposal will lead to a spike in petrol and diesel prices and want it to be sent to voters instead of being instituted by politicians.

But negotiations with Democrats, who have a clear Senate majority, collapsed last week, leading to the walkout.

This is important, because while the Democrats have an 18 to 12 majority in the chamber, there must be 20 members present for a quorum — meaning nothing can be done until at least two members return.

"It's time for the Senate Republicans to show up and do the job they were elected to do," Oregon Governor Kate Brown said.

What can the police actually do?
Governor Brown deployed officers to try to round up the rogue Republicans on Thursday.

Technically, Oregon State Police (OSP) can force any senators they track down into a patrol car and return them to the Capitol.

Expect things to be a little bit less gung-ho, however, with the agency preferring to opt for "polite communication" and patience instead.

Kate Gillem, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, confirmed that some members had left the state to avoid a vote because police don't have jurisdiction outside Oregon.

The agency said it had been in contact with several senators and that officers were being assisted by "out of state resources".

Under state law, the absentee senators will be fined $US500 ($720) a day per person if enough of them remain absent to prevent a vote.

What have the politicians said?
The walkout brings all Senate business to a halt with less than a week left in the legislative session — and senators still need to vote on the budget.



"I beg and beseech my fellow legislators to come to the floor," Senate President Peter Courtney said.

"I need you, the legislature needs you, the people of Oregon need you to pass budgets to take care of our citizens."

But the Republican senators are sticking to their guns, concerned the cap-and-trade plan will exacerbate a growing divide between urban and rural Oregon.

"I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It's just that simple," Republican senator Brian Boquist told reporters during the walkout.

Senate Republican leader Herman Baertschiger added that the walkout "represents our constituency and exactly how we should be doing our job".

What happens now?
With the Oregon 11 unlikely to cede for now, and the closure of the Capitol over the weekend due to a "possible militia threat", the Senate has so far been unable to conduct business.

A group of local Republicans had threatened to protest inside the state legislature on Saturday (local time) when politicians were present, and anti-government groups said they could join, prompting the statehouse shutdown.

Right-wing groups have previously posted their support for the politicians on social media — in one instance offering to provide escorts to them should the state police come for them.

This is the second time in this legislative session that the minority politicians have used a walkout as a way to slow the process.

Democrats have a rare supermajority in Oregon's House and Senate, meaning Republicans don't have many ways to influence the debate.

The political adversaries were last month locked in a four-day standoff over a school funding tax package that only ended when the Governor struck a deal to table legislation on gun control and vaccine requirements.

How much do these politicians earn? Because the fine most probably isn't a deterrant from doing this.

[Agent Fisher]

Aside from the right wing militia threats from some of the same groups that did the Wildlife Occupation... last year? And the one State Senator that was tweeting macho bullshit of 'If you're sending the State Police after me, send Bachelors and the heavily armed'.

Aside from that, well done for them. Essentially an absentee filibuster. The State Dems have a majority to pass whatever they want, regardless of how a large chunk of the state feels about it, so the State Repubs decide 'Ok, you're gonna force stuff through, we're just not gonna show up.'

[Rogue 9]

The fine most definitely isn't a deterrent, since they have crowdfunded nearly $40,000 dollars to cover the cost to date, more than they would be fined for the remainder of the legislative session.

[aerius]

Oregon gonna Oregon.
This is nothing new, both parties in that State have been using walkouts to deny quorums since before I was born.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/ ... 516995001/

Legislative minorities have used walkouts as a negotiating tool many times in Oregon. Here are some of the most significant ones prior to Thursday's walkout:

May 7, 2019: Senate Republicans walked out for four days to protest a $2 billion tax package for K-12 schools. They later struck a deal with Brown, getting Democrats to kill bills addressing guns and vaccine exemptions. The deal also included a “reset” on the cap-and-trade bill and a promise not to walk out again.

March 8, 2007: Senate Republicans staged a brief walkout over a tax deal. Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the Oregon State Police to fetch two Republican senators from Corvallis for a vote. The senators returned voluntarily without being arrested.

June 25, 2001: House Democrats, including then-Minority Leader Kate Brown, staged a five-day walkout to prevent a Republican maneuver to redraw state legislative districts without the governor’s signature.

April 14, 1995: Ten Senate Democrats walked out, holing up in a Salem restaurant and denying Republicans a quorum, after Republicans decided to kill an award named after the late Sen. Frank Roberts, a Democrat.

1971: Both House and Senate Democrats staged walkouts during the session, but neither lasted more than a day. Senate Democrats walked out to protest Republican leadership’s refusal to consider ratification of a federal constitutional amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. State Police rounded up missing lawmakers, who were at a Salem legislator’s house. House Democrats also walked out, although the reason is unclear. Oregon State Police were unable to locate the missing legislators, who were hiding in the Senate Majority Leader’s office.

Source: Oregon Senate Majority Office, Statesman Journal archives

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, but they don't typically make terroristic threats and engage the services of militias while doing it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've been thinking of posting something about this for a while, because this is something that is every bit as serious a threat to peace as what's happening with Iran, in my book. I largely held off from doing so, in part because I honestly couldn't think of any way to discuss the topic that wouldn't be inflamatory even by this board's usual standards.

Oregon gonna Oregon.
This is nothing new, both parties in that State have been using walkouts to deny quorums since before I was born.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/ ... 516995001/

Legislative minorities have used walkouts as a negotiating tool many times in Oregon. Here are some of the most significant ones prior to Thursday's walkout:

May 7, 2019: Senate Republicans walked out for four days to protest a $2 billion tax package for K-12 schools. They later struck a deal with Brown, getting Democrats to kill bills addressing guns and vaccine exemptions. The deal also included a “reset” on the cap-and-trade bill and a promise not to walk out again.

March 8, 2007: Senate Republicans staged a brief walkout over a tax deal. Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked the Oregon State Police to fetch two Republican senators from Corvallis for a vote. The senators returned voluntarily without being arrested.

June 25, 2001: House Democrats, including then-Minority Leader Kate Brown, staged a five-day walkout to prevent a Republican maneuver to redraw state legislative districts without the governor’s signature.

April 14, 1995: Ten Senate Democrats walked out, holing up in a Salem restaurant and denying Republicans a quorum, after Republicans decided to kill an award named after the late Sen. Frank Roberts, a Democrat.

1971: Both House and Senate Democrats staged walkouts during the session, but neither lasted more than a day. Senate Democrats walked out to protest Republican leadership’s refusal to consider ratification of a federal constitutional amendment lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. State Police rounded up missing lawmakers, who were at a Salem legislator’s house. House Democrats also walked out, although the reason is unclear. Oregon State Police were unable to locate the missing legislators, who were hiding in the Senate Majority Leader’s office.

Source: Oregon Senate Majority Office, Statesman Journal archives

This isn't just walkouts.

The Republicans walked out. Maybe that's business as usual. The governor threatened to have the police bring them back to make them do their jobs. That's upping the ante a bit, maybe, but after so much of this obstructionist shit I'm sympathetic. But so far, none of that is worth going into crisis mode over.

But then a legislator responds by threatening to resist the police violently. "send bachelors and come heavily armed". He also threatened the state Senate President that "If you send the state police after me, Hell's coming to get you."

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/ ... 8df92919ff

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said Wednesday she's willing to extend the legislative session and mobilize the state police if Senate Republicans follow through with a threat to block a vote on a sweeping climate plan.

"I am prepared to use all resources and tools available to me as Governor to ensure that Oregonians are being served by their leaders," she said in a statement. "I am in close communication with Oregon State Police and my office is making preparations for a special session."

Her statement heightens tensions with Senate Republicans, who said earlier this week that they are "prepared to take action to stop" what could become the nation's second statewide cap and trade program.

Read HB 2020, the cap-and-trade bill

Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger, Jr., responded to the governor's threats, saying that Democrats' climate proposals threaten business and the livelihoods of rural communities.

"Walking out is part of the conversation because the governor is not willing to move on her position on the bill," said Baertschiger, from Grants Pass. "She is only representing Portland and the environmental community, not rural Oregonians."

Baertschiger, who owns a logging company, told KGW's Pat Dooris a walkout would be a last resort, and if Brown did indeed use OSP troopers to keep his party in the building, he'd take her to federal court.

The back-and-forth comes as truckers and loggers from around the state returned to the Capitol on Wednesday to protest cap and trade, a free market solution to lower industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade is a top priority for Democrats, who view the program as a way to meet the state's emission goals while raising money to invest in a transition to green technology.

Democrats in Oregon control both the House and the Senate. The GOP has previously used walkouts as a way to slow the legislative process.

Republicans walked out of the Senate earlier this session in protest of a school funding tax package, denying the chamber enough lawmakers to continue with a vote. The sergeant-at-arms of the Oregon Senate was ordered to search the Capitol for Republican senators who were refusing to attend. The standoff lasted four days, until the governor struck a deal to table legislation on gun control and vaccine requirements.

As part of that deal, Republicans said they wouldn't walk out again or delay votes through other legislative procedures. Although Brown could have deployed the Oregon State Police to physically bring members back to the chamber, she chose instead to strike a deal, saying at the time that she wanted to maintain decorum and have an "orderly session."

But civility seems to be out the window as session nears its end, and Republicans have become increasingly agitated with a Democratic supermajority that plans to push through huge legislative priorities over the next two weeks addressing affordable housing and climate change.

Brown called the Republican threat of a walkout "a slap in the face," saying conservatives have turned "their back on respectful dialogue just because they don't agree with others in the conversation."

"I'm disappointed in the Senate Republicans' indications of a walkout, which would silence their constituents while stifling democracy," Brown said in a press release. "It's not only dishonest, it violates the oaths they took to speak for their constituents as well as the word they gave to their colleagues and to me."

Sen. Brian Boquist, a Republican from Dallas, pushed back against the governor's threats to mobilize the state police if a second walkout occurs.

"If you send the state police after me," he told Senate President Peter Courtney, "Hell's coming to get you."

Boquist re-iterated his stance with KGW's Pat Dooris. He said if police come, they should "send bachelors and come heavily armed. I'm not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon."

Democrat Lew Frederick responded and called Boquist's statement outrageous.

“I think that’s one of the more outrageous things I’ve seen. Government is not a reality show. This is not the way we talk, not the way we work with people. It brings nice quotable quotes. It makes them look powerful and strong," said Frederick. "It's not the plan here.”

This was followed by armed militia pledging to support the Republican legislators (who have since fled the state to Idaho), offering them an escort to protect them from arrest, and surrounding the Legislature. The latest session was cancelled due to (obvious) security concerns (Oregon was also the sight of the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge during the Obama Presidency that ended in one militia terrorist shot, and many other scumbags escaping justice). In short, this is nothing less than an armed insurrection, backed by elected representatives of the main opposition party, against the lawful and democratically-elected state government of Oregon.

Because the OP didn't fully lay out those details, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. But don't you dare try to "Both Sides" this, or pretend that its business as usual. Its not. Its an armed insurrection against the democratically-elected state government, with the tacit (and in and at least one case explicit) support of elected reps of the main opposition party.

This is the sort of behaviour you'd expect from politics in 1850s America. You know, right before the Civil War kicked off.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I will say, good for the Governor of Oregon sending the police after them (if it was up to me I'd add terrorism and possibly treason charges). Its past time we had some Democrats with the backbone to stand up to the borderline-terrorist shit the Republicans pull. Arrest the fuckers, and if they're really stupid enough to start a gunfight with the state police over a cap and trade bill, rather than folding like the chicken hawks they usually are, then on their heads be it. Backing down or being hesitant will only encourage them to make more threats and push further.

"Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now than at any time hereafter."-Abraham Lincoln.

[Agent Fisher]

Also, I will say, good for the Governor of Oregon sending the police after them (if it was up to me I'd add terrorism and possibly treason charges).

For all of them? Or just the single Rep who made the ToughGuy statements? Also, are you going to then also condem Dems anytime violent radicals on the left pledge their support to them?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I will say, good for the Governor of Oregon sending the police after them (if it was up to me I'd add terrorism and possibly treason charges).

For all of them? Or just the single Rep who made the ToughGuy statements?

Just the one, and any others who make similar comments.

And the armed militia members laying siege to the Legislature themselves, of course.

Also, are you going to then also condem Dems anytime violent radicals on the left pledge their support to them?

Both Sides! Both Sides!

When Democratic politicians routinely encourage, and fail to condemn, violent extremists on the Left, sure, I'll condemn them for it too.

[aerius]

This was followed by armed militia pledging to support the Republican legislators (who have since fled the state to Idaho), offering them an escort to protect them from arrest, and surrounding the Legislature. The latest session was cancelled due to (obvious) security concerns (Oregon was also the sight of the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge during the Obama Presidency that ended in one militia terrorist shot, and many other scumbags escaping justice). In short, this is nothing less than an armed insurrection, backed by elected representatives of the main opposition party, against the lawful and democratically-elected state government of Oregon.

Because the OP didn't fully lay out those details, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. But don't you dare try to "Both Sides" this, or pretend that its business as usual. Its not. Its an armed insurrection against the democratically-elected state government, with the tacit (and in and at least one case explicit) support of elected reps of the main opposition party.

This is the sort of behaviour you'd expect from politics in 1850s America. You know, right before the Civil War kicked off.

Got a question for you.

Where does it say in Oregon's statutes that it's legal to send law enforcement after politicians to drag them back into the legislature for a vote?

Because if it doesn't, then that's illegal use of law enforcement, and any LE personnel participating in said action are committing an illegal act of kidnapping and forcible confinement which means they can be legally shot under Oregon's self-defence laws.

[The Romulan Republic]

This was followed by armed militia pledging to support the Republican legislators (who have since fled the state to Idaho), offering them an escort to protect them from arrest, and surrounding the Legislature. The latest session was cancelled due to (obvious) security concerns (Oregon was also the sight of the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge during the Obama Presidency that ended in one militia terrorist shot, and many other scumbags escaping justice). In short, this is nothing less than an armed insurrection, backed by elected representatives of the main opposition party, against the lawful and democratically-elected state government of Oregon.

Because the OP didn't fully lay out those details, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. But don't you dare try to "Both Sides" this, or pretend that its business as usual. Its not. Its an armed insurrection against the democratically-elected state government, with the tacit (and in and at least one case explicit) support of elected reps of the main opposition party.

This is the sort of behaviour you'd expect from politics in 1850s America. You know, right before the Civil War kicked off.

Got a question for you.

Where does it say in Oregon's statutes that it's legal to send law enforcement after politicians to drag them back into the legislature for a vote?

Because if it doesn't, then that's illegal use of law enforcement, and any LE personnel participating in said action are committing an illegal act of kidnapping and forcible confinement which means they can be legally shot under Oregon's self-defence laws.

I have no idea, I haven't read all of Oregon's statutes, but the fact that none of the reporting I've seen describes the Governor's actions as illegal, and that no court has told her to stay the order to send the police after them, is certainly suggestive.

Also, I see you're going all in on defending a violent insurrection against the democratically-elected government of Oregon, and advocating the murder of state police. Showing your true colours, eh? Are you going to whine anyway about how I'm lying when I characterize you as a Alt. Reichist?

[Agent Fisher]

Ok good. So, as I said, aside from the dumbass Republican who's made threats and should be charged for them if they meet the criteria in the Oregon Penal Code, and the anti-government militias, I have no problem with this.

Seeing a super majority Blue legislature getting stalled from passing whatever they want, I'm not gonna call it a death of democracy or an insurrection. They're expressing their political rights by not showing up to rubber stamp something. If the Republicans had a super majority but not enough to hold a quorum and the Dems decide to skip town to stall the process, I'll applaud them too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ok good. So, as I said, aside from the dumbass Republican who's made threats and should be charged for them if they meet the criteria in the Oregon Penal Code, and the anti-government militias, I have no problem with this.

Seeing a super majority Blue legislature getting stalled from passing whatever they want, I'm not gonna call it a death of democracy or an insurrection. They're expressing their political rights by not showing up to rubber stamp something. If the Republicans had a super majority but not enough to hold a quorum and the Dems decide to skip town to stall the process, I'll applaud them too.

Personally, I think its petty obstructionism, and if the Governor is acting within her lawfully authority (and I have seen no proof that she isn't), then I have no problem with her actions. Like I said, its nice to see a Democrat with some backbone.

But as long as we agree that the people making threats and obstructing the law while heavily armed belong in prison, that's the main point.

Edit: I'll add that regardless of whether it was the right call to begin with, in my view the governor absofuckinglutely has to follow through with the arrests now. Because the very worst thing she could do is draw a line in the sand, then back down in the face of threats of violence. Because that will send the message that the Democrats will always fold, and that Republicans can get whatever they want by threats of violence and armed insurrection. Which means that they'll do this again, and again, and again, and probably escalate every time.

Hence my use of the Lincoln quote (which was addressed to supporters urging them not to concede everything to the South when states began seceding):

"Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now than at any time hereafter."

[aerius]

I have no idea, I haven't read all of Oregon's statutes, but the fact that none of the reporting I've seen describes the Governor's actions as illegal, and that no court has told her to stay the order to send the police after them, is certainly suggestive.

It's a rhetorical question you stupid fuckface. Every time I think you can't possibly be more of a blowhard dumbass, you prove me wrong.

This is Oregon's Constitution.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... Const.aspx

I point you towards Section 9, 20, and 34. Let me quote them for you.

Section 9. Legislators free from arrest and not subject to civil process in certain cases; words uttered in debate. Senators and Representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breaches of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislative Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same; and shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislative Assembly, nor during the fifteen days next before the commencement thereof: Nor shall a member for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place.—

Any pending charges or processes on those guys? Nope. Guess what, you can't arrest them.

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—

In other words, everyone is equal. If you can't do it to a private citizen, you can't do it to a politician.

Section 34. Slavery or involuntary servitude. There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.— [Added to Bill of Rights as unnumbered section by vote of the people at time of adoption of the Oregon Constitution in accordance with section 4 of Article XVIII thereof]

If the politicians don't want to work, you can't make them.

Guess what this means? It's illegal to send law enforcement after the politicians to drag them back, any attempt do so is kidnapping and forcible confinement which are felonies. Lethal force to defend against the above is legal under Oregon's laws.

Also, I see you're going all in on defending a violent insurrection against the democratically-elected government of Oregon, and advocating the murder of state police. Showing your true colours, eh? Are you going to whine anyway about how I'm lying when I characterize you as a Alt. Reichist?

Except it isn't. Oh no, some racist shitbags are going to protest in the legislature, the horror! Last time I checked, that's perfectly fine thanks to the 1st Amendment unless it gets violent. The only illegal thing that's happened so far is ordering the police to go after the missing Republican politicians.

But yeah, what else is new? TRR doesn't know the facts, gets all his shit wrong, and has a tantrum where he throws around the racist Alt-reich label as if it somehow buys him board cred.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's a rhetorical question you stupid fuckface. Every time I think you can't possibly be more of a blowhard dumbass, you prove me wrong.

This is Oregon's Constitution.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... Const.aspx

I point you towards Section 9, 20, and 34. Let me quote them for you.

Section 9. Legislators free from arrest and not subject to civil process in certain cases; words uttered in debate. Senators and Representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breaches of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the Legislative Assembly, and in going to and returning from the same; and shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the Legislative Assembly, nor during the fifteen days next before the commencement thereof: Nor shall a member for words uttered in debate in either house, be questioned in any other place.—

Any pending charges or processes on those guys? Nope. Guess what, you can't arrest them.

Hmm. Does escorting them back to sit in the legislature technically count as an arrest? Honest question.

Also, I'm pretty sure that a certain legislator has now met the "felony" standard for his threats, if not the treason standard.

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—

In other words, everyone is equal. If you can't do it to a private citizen, you can't do it to a politician.[/quote]

After just quoting a passage that gives Legislators broader immunity to arrest and civil suites than ordinary citizens.

Perhaps the law is a little more complex than armchair lawyer for the defense aerius is claiming?

Section 34. Slavery or involuntary servitude. There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.— [Added to Bill of Rights as unnumbered section by vote of the people at time of adoption of the Oregon Constitution in accordance with section 4 of Article XVIII thereof]

If the politicians don't want to work, you can't make them.[/quote]

You're really going to try to equate this to slavery?

Guess what this means? It's illegal to send law enforcement after the politicians to drag them back, any attempt do so is kidnapping and forcible confinement which are felonies. Lethal force to defend against the above is legal under Oregon's laws.

If that's the case, then why didn't the legislators simply file a court challenge and get the Governor's order overturned? These aren't poor black men- they actually have legal recourse in America.

Also, even if (and I am not for an instant conceding that this is the case) they technically had a legal right to resist the police by force, only a moron or a lunatic actually responds to a wrongful arrest by threatening to shoot the police. That's a great way to get shot. Sane people contest the arrest in court.

Except it isn't. Oh no, some racist shitbags are going to protest in the legislature, the horror! Last time I checked, that's perfectly fine thanks to the 1st Amendment unless it gets violent. The only illegal thing that's happened so far is ordering the police to go after the missing Republican politicians.

Ah yes, "protesters" with guns who have succeeded in getting the legislature suspended with their threats of violence. But I guess in your world issuing a questionable arrest warrant is worse than issuing threats of violence.

So, as usual, its not really "Both Sides". "Both Sides" is just a mask for "Really, the Democrats are the bad guys, and I support the Republicans, but I don't have the guts to say it openly so I'm going to use false equivalencies."

But yeah, what else is new? TRR doesn't know the facts, gets all his shit wrong, and has a tantrum where he throws around the racist Alt-reich label as if it somehow buys him board cred.

What else is new? aerius relies on ad hominem insults and smears and trying to invoke my straw reputation on this board to discredit my arguments.

Oh, and I don't give a shit for "board cred". You think I argue with half the people here constantly to make myself popular?

[Lonestar]

Yeah, but they don't typically make terroristic threats and engage the services of militias while doing it.

They typically don't send the OSP out to round them up though. When the current governor did a walk out they didn't for her. What's good for the goose ain't for the gander, I guess,

[aerius]

Let me spell this out for you since you're clearly too dumb to understand how politics works. This is nothing but political grandstanding by both sides. The Republican politicians threw a hissy fit and walked out to deny a quorum, which is perfectly legal. The Governor decides to "act tough" and calls for the police to be sent after them and bring them back to the table. This is arguably illegal but it's mostly political theatre, and all the adults know it. One of the Republicans in hiding decides to call the Governor's bluff and say "come at me bro, I dare you!" knowing full well that the cops aren't going to bust his door down and drag him out by force. It's just a bunch of dicks playing to their bases, nothing's gonna happen besides maybe a couple dozen wankers showing up to protest at the legislature. It's a complete non-event, but TRR somehow thinks it'll be the start of a Civil War.

Let me say this again. Walking out to deny a quorum and kill any pending legislation is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in many States by all parties. Oregon's done it a bunch of times and just last month Tennessee did it as well. If you want to stop it, you can begin by amending your State Constitutions. Maybe you can do something useful for once and petition your legislative rep to do so instead of using the internet to vent your daily hour of hate.

[Lonestar]

Are you talking to me or TRR

[mr friendly guy]

Are you talking to me or TRR

Since he mentioned TRR by name (although he didn't quote the relevant post), I am going to say the latter.

[aerius]

Are you talking to me or TRR

TRR. You're cool. Your post must've gone up while I was still typing.

[Zixinus]

To me it sounds like a problem with how the state legislature works. Someone being late or being stuck in traffic is accidentally a political action.

So maybe change things so this is not a valid political tactic and that a minority can't sabotage what is supposed to be a democratic process? For good or ill?

[Tribble]

What about a call of the House? IIRC that can compel absentee members to attend and can also lead to arrests, at least at the federal level.

Does Oregon have anything similar?

[The Romulan Republic]

Let me spell this out for you since you're clearly too dumb to understand how politics works. This is nothing but political grandstanding by both sides. The Republican politicians threw a hissy fit and walked out to deny a quorum, which is perfectly legal. The Governor decides to "act tough" and calls for the police to be sent after them and bring them back to the table. This is arguably illegal but it's mostly political theatre, and all the adults know it. One of the Republicans in hiding decides to call the Governor's bluff and say "come at me bro, I dare you!" knowing full well that the cops aren't going to bust his door down and drag him out by force. It's just a bunch of dicks playing to their bases, nothing's gonna happen besides maybe a couple dozen wankers showing up to protest at the legislature. It's a complete non-event, but TRR somehow thinks it'll be the start of a Civil War.

One side started the confrontation by trying to obstruct the policies of the democratically-elected government which were intended to address an existential threat to the planet. The other didn't. One side threatened to shoot people. The other didn't. And no amount of false equivalencies, or of personal abuse and ridicule seeking to deflect my arguments by ad hominem, will change that reality.

I don't think that this particular incident will necessarily (or even likely) be the Fort Sumter or Harper's Ferry of a second Civil War. I sure as hell hope not. But you cannot honestly deny that when legislators start talking about shooting state police and make threats against the state governor and have armed militia backing them up, or they flee the state pursued by the state police, we are well outside the bounds of normal politics.

Let me say this again. Walking out to deny a quorum and kill any pending legislation is perfectly legal, and has been done many times in many States by all parties. Oregon's done it a bunch of times and just last month Tennessee did it as well. If you want to stop it, you can begin by amending your State Constitutions. Maybe you can do something useful for once and petition your legislative rep to do so instead of using the internet to vent your daily hour of hate.

Certain states do have provisions that can compel members to sit. The legality of the Governor's actions should be determined in a Court of law, not by threats on social media or a mob in the streets.

[aerius]

Certain states do have provisions that can compel members to sit. The legality of the Governor's actions should be determined in a Court of law, not by threats on social media or a mob in the streets.

Oregon isn't one of them, which makes everything you've posted in this thread irrelevant.

[The Romulan Republic]

Certain states do have provisions that can compel members to sit. The legality of the Governor's actions should be determined in a Court of law, not by threats on social media or a mob in the streets.

Oregon isn't one of them, which makes everything you've posted in this thread irrelevant.

Honestly, it wouldn't change much if you're right. It might lower my estimation of the governor a little, but my sympathies are still with the side that didn't threaten to shoot people instead of taking the matter to a law court (which is what they should do if they have a legitimate legal grievance), and didn't try to obstruct efforts to address an existential threat to the planet for the sake of petty partisanship.