• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois?

Should Wiscnson Democrats be paid while they hide in Illinois?


  • Total voters
    47
Assembly Rule 30 (3)
(3) A number smaller than a majority of the current membership may, however, adjourn the assembly or compel the attendance of absent members.
[(1) am. A.Res. 3]

Wisconsin Legislature Data

I wonder if the Senate will ratchet up the stakes and begin talking about ethics violations...
 
Should Wisconsin Democrats be paid while they hide out in Illinois and subvert the democratic process?

LOL,

they should be not only paid but also pay themselves for failured sessions.
 
So every time one party disagrees with a Bill they should just leave and shutdown the Legislative branch of government?

Until they change the rules and make it to where a quorum can still go on if politicians deliberately skip town to miss vote or change the rules only requiring a simple majority then the minority will always have the option of skipping town.
 
Until they change the rules and make it to where a quorum can still go on if politicians deliberately skip town to miss vote or change the rules only requiring a simple majority then the minority will always have the option of skipping town.

This issue isn't can they. The issue is should they. Just like freedom of speech just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. These Dem Senators should have a little more Honor.
 
This issue isn't can they. The issue is should they. Just like freedom of speech just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. These Dem Senators should have a little more Honor.

In defending the rights of working people of their state, the Democratic Senators are showing honor, courage and heroism.
 
In defending the rights of working people of their state, the Democratic Senators are showing honor, courage and heroism.

The Democratic senators are subverting the democratic process and should be brought up on ethics violations for their obstructionism.
 
The Democratic senators are subverting the democratic process and should be brought up on ethics violations for their obstructionism.

If this is true, than ethic charges should go around every time there is obstructionism, effectively banning things like a filibuster.
 
If this is true, than ethic charges should go around every time there is obstructionism, effectively banning things like a filibuster.

Filibustering is a perfectly legal tactic, to many's chagrin. Running-and-hiding, on the other hand, is not. Our governments would grind to a halt if, every time a party thought they'd lose a vote, they skipped town if they could effect the quorum. It would effectively paralyze our legislatures.

Hey! That'd be a good thing!
 
Filibustering is a perfectly legal tactic, to many's chagrin. Running-and-hiding, on the other hand, is not. Our governments would grind to a halt if, every time a party thought they'd lose a vote, they skipped town if they could effect the quorum. It would effectively paralyze our legislatures.

Hey! That'd be a good thing!

So you don't think filibustering is obstructionism? To me, both cases are examples of people taking advantage of rules for purposes they were not meant for.
 
So you don't think filibustering is obstructionism? To me, both cases are examples of people taking advantage of rules for purposes they were not meant for.

I don't disagree with you. I'm actually one of the "many" who's chagrinned. ;-)
 
I don't disagree with you. I'm actually one of the "many" who's chagrinned. ;-)

My concern is that charges on ethics should not be selectively applied. If we are going to propose ethics charges for obstructionism, we should be fair across the board.
 
This issue isn't can they. The issue is should they.
Yes they should. Because they owe it to their voters to look out for their interests and to use any legally available means to do so. Because after all is said and done they can honestly say they did everything in their power to look our for the interests of their voters even if legislation they did not want passed.

Just like freedom of speech just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Unlike freedom of speech you can modify the quorum rules at a state level. You can modify the rules to state that if you deliberately refuse to show to up in order to prevent a quorum the vote will still go on and you will forfeit your vote. You can also ban filibusters, you can choose whether or not something only needs a simple majority,55% majority a 60% majority and so on.


These Dem Senators should have a little more Honor.
It would be dishonorable of a politician to not use any legally available means to support and enact legislation his voters support and to oppose and prevent legislation his voters are against. I know that if republicans had the ability to fillabuster Obamacar and they didn't I would be severely pissed at them.
 
Wisconsin Legislature Data

I wonder if the Senate will ratchet up the stakes and begin talking about ethics violations...
"ethics violations"??? Compel means what it says, so how about we wonder why the Guv hasn't directed his AG to issue an "arrest warrant" for each member to compel them to come back? Either the Guv acts in "the public interest" and plays hardball or he doesn't!

The rogue legislators have an ally in IL Governor Quinn who is feeling almost giddy:
Gov. Quinn: Fleeing Lawmakers Welcome in Illinois, Not ‘Hiding’
Updated: Friday, 25 Feb 2011, 12:36 PM CST
Published : Friday, 25 Feb 2011, 12:36 PM CST

FOX Chicago News

Chicago - As Democratic lawmakers from Wisconsin and Indiana have fled to Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn is trying to downplay any tension between our state and neighboring ones.

The governor objects to the idea that those lawmakers from other states are "hiding out."

"They're not hiding out. They're visiting Illinois, and we're happy they're here. I talked to one of their leaders, I think on Sunday, and they're always welcome," Quinn said. "Regional differences don't really help any state. We got to work as a region. And I’m head of the midwest Governor's Association. We're meeting this weekend on Sunday at 8. That ought to be a lot of fun."

I wonder just how giddy he'd be feeling if he had to refuse a bench warrant from a judge in his neigboring state of WI? If he did and I was Guv of WI I'd ask a federal court judge to hold him in contempt and advise him that he better respect a legally issued and served warrant or face the consequences. A little brown in the bloomers can be a wonderful motivator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HALLELUJAH!

Recall process now underway for runaway legislators.

NOW issue warrants Guv! Put the pressure on from TWO directions.

This is getting ugly, frankly. Each side is upping the ante. I hope the Governor hangs tough. He can't be recalled until next January. By then, whatever happens will be fate accompli' -- and he'll either be a hero or a jerk...This is verrrry interesting...
 
This talk about a failed session or failure session stems from this reality;
As provided in Article 12, Section 15 of the WI Constitution:

“Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.”
Therefore, absent an arrest warrant issued for a felony, as per my earlier suggestion here, the only other real option is this. The Guv and the Speaker call a "failed legislative session" and shut down the legislature on the grounds of not being able to have a quorum to conduct business. After 15 days the political immunity from arrest and prosecution expires. In practical terms BOTH options should be used. If my suggestion is used and ineffective or stalled then the expiration of immunity clicks in and gives them a second shot at nailing the b*stards.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing you know is a well-coordinated effort by the progressive left. It really should be viewed in the broader perspective of just another attempt to break this nation as a viable constitutional republic by continually working on class division by class envy. The manipulation of unions, their leadership and members is critical to that effort. This article helps to tie it together:


February 27, 2011
Public Unions & the Socialist Utopia
By Robert Tracinski

The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence.

Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.

It is a matter of survival for Democrats in an immediate, practical sense. As Michael Barone explains, the government employees' unions are a mechanism for siphoning taxpayer dollars into the campaigns of Democratic politicians.

But there is something deeper here than just favor-selling and vote-buying. There is something that almost amounts to a twisted idealism in the Democrats' crusade. They are fighting, not just to preserve their special privileges, but to preserve a social ideal. Or rather, they are fighting to maintain the illusion that their ideal system is benevolent and sustainable.

Unionized public-sector employment is the distilled essence of the left's moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business.
More here

Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit and what is it he wants that is so unreasonable...so outrageous...that it brings in out-of-state union troublemakers to assist in this violation of the public trust? He wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Is that excessive I don't think so considering what they HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING! Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That's an outrage.

Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are helping to bankrupt America

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Why do you NOT read that in the mainstream media? Or hear it on the radio? Or see it on TV? THINK! There are many radicals who believe that here and now in America is their moment in time. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs. Sounds pretty damned reasonable to me understanding the totality of the circumstances. The left here will ignore this and will still continue the prattle of the Open Society led sub-culture
 
Last edited:
My concern is that charges on ethics should not be selectively applied. If we are going to propose ethics charges for obstructionism, we should be fair across the board.

This will never happen as long as the conservatives remain in power.
The Democrats must broaden their appeal.
 
This is the magazine that Mr. Tracinski writes his opinions for



The Intellectual Activist is especially dedicated to understanding and promoting the revolutionary ideas of the 20th-century novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand — the great champion of the power of reason, the supreme value of the individual, and the unfettered liberty of a capitalist society. TIA serves as a forum for those who are working to gain a deeper understanding of Ayn Rand's fiction and philosophy and applying her ideas to gain new insights in every field of human knowledge.

What more do we need to know? I for one would not trust a follower of Ayn Rand if they claimed the sun would set in the west today. I would look in that direction just to make sure.

More pure rot has been put forth in the last seventy years by followers of Rand than almost anyone else who did not start a war or commit mass murder.
 
This is the magazine that Mr. Tracinski writes his opinions for





What more do we need to know? I for one would not trust a follower of Ayn Rand if they claimed the sun would set in the west today. I would look in that direction just to make sure.

More pure rot has been put forth in the last seventy years by followers of Rand than almost anyone else who did not start a war or commit mass murder.

actually socialists spewed far more rot and even those who did not actively participate in the murders of the 100 million slain by leftwing despots, they helped facilitate the mindset that lead to the Killing fields of Cambodia, the 'Cultural Revolution' and Stalins collectivization of the farms
 
actually socialists spewed far more rot and even those who did not actively participate in the murders of the 100 million slain by leftwing despots, they helped facilitate the mindset that lead to the Killing fields of Cambodia, the 'Cultural Revolution' and Stalins collectivization of the farms
mister haymarket doesn't understand what you're talking about sadly. He is SO OPINIONATED POLITICALLY THAT HE won't even list his political persuasion. Someone should ask him...Wassup wid dat homey?

I've read Tracinski a lot and the late Ayn Rand also. Rand was mainly a novelist, but VERY opinionated on and in touch with real world politics. She is never popular with the left because she believed in two things that are antithetical to the left. The supremacy of rational thought, of reasoning out decisions, and of constitutional democracies that limited the size and power of governments. If you are a person who loves this country and do not want to see it go down the tubes with Obama steering it...BOTH of those writers he holds in varying degrees of contempt are good reads with good perspective and opinions. Ayn Rand was a heretic if you are a radical of the Commie persuasion or favor totalitarian dictatorships OR believe that feelgood emotionalism should drive decisionmaking. The lefties love to blast at anyone who doesn't march to their tune. He'll likely complain after reading this that he's not a lefty, but we know that's not true, because if so he could have chosen Moderate or Independent to identify himself. He didn't!
 
If this is true, than ethic charges should go around every time there is obstructionism, effectively banning things like a filibuster.
Filibustering was instituted to give the minority party in power one vehicle in a democracy to make their voices heard. It goes to insuring the voice of the minority is always heard. And YOU want to ban it. Interesting and revealing too. I guess you were looking out the classroom windows a lot in your school years, huh! Although I notice you are "Slightly liberal", sort of like the gal who is almost a virgin. You are or you're not.
 
Last edited:
So you don't think filibustering is obstructionism? To me, both cases are examples of people taking advantage of rules for purposes they were not meant for.

Perhaps, but that is also a long and historical part of the rules of the Senate. When the GOP talked about altering those rules, the so-called "nuclear option", the Dems hooted and hollared about it (though then made the same suggestions a few years afterward). Cutting and running from the state is NOT among the time-honored rules of ANY legislative body in a democratic society...
 
Back
Top Bottom