This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Meh, the "I think" is implied... I think.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and to voice that opinion. But there's definitely a difference in tone between "I think this is immoral and repugnant" and "this is immoral and repugnant."
This might be better as its own thread but I'll ask anyway...
Oops.
Just think about all this money that they waste for this "special" session, when it could go to the great educators of this state. Since they seem to have problems funding the education system in Texas.
Why not blame Wendy Davis for all that wasted money?
They have telephones and the internet in Texas, right? It's easy for constituents to call or email their legislator if they want.
Don't you think they've discussed the matter with their constituents? It's not like this is a novel question.
That's why this was pretty much histrionics. As soon as this is passed the dems will bring a suit to a friendly judge who will stay. Unless the SC wants to revisit Casey the law would likely be struck down.
Were these nudity rights granted to him by the supreme court, then revoked by a bunch of old women?
The bill up for consideration last night was part of a special session. The governor can declare anything he wants to as an emergency issue.
I wasn't aware that was the question you asked in the previous post. However, SCOTUS has reversed itself in the past, and someday will do so again. Saying it's "settled law" isn't a good argument either. One could argue that until very recently, gay marriage was settled law.
I would bet my life they haven't discussed it with their constituents for the most part. Not to say the constituents opinion is contrary to the legislator but I'm sure they don't hold forums or town halls or solicit opinion on it.
Politicians generally do that which they believe will get them re-elected. While you may be right that they haven't held forums or town halls I bet they have solicited enough opinions that they know which way the majority of their constituents want them to vote.
The only opinions they solicit are the ones that affirm their views. I Agree and understand that it's politics as usual. But they carefully craft their public interaction to validate their own views, not solicit opinions. I used to do it for a living for the master of Texas politics. Like any good attorney, our office never asked a question without knowing the answer in advance.
Ideally, every issue should be voted based on your constituency's preferences. That's kind of the point of elected officials.
Their own values. Could you vote against your own values if the majority of your constituents supported it?
That's kind of the point. If you don't, the system should correct itself. This happens when pissed off constituents vote for the other candidate in the future.
Assuming it is an issue worth basing your vote on, which for many isn't abortion. Just looking at polls, it seems most Texans were in favor of SB5 so it seems that the opposition isn't greater, just louder. So the previous indication that somehow Republicans pushing this through without consulting their constituency isn't right. But if that is the way we are going to go, why not just make everything referendums?
The reason why this is the 2nd special session. He tried and failed in the first session, its time to move on and lets get other work that we need. Remember this Gov. Is turning down help for healthcare and for education. So if he is really concerned about the born, then focus on when they are here and breathing and those that need his help today!!
No, but I'd make it clear during the election if my position on such a controversial issue went against party platform. That's probably why I'm not a politician.
I knew a LA who said he wasn't a politician because he was fat, ugly, and had done every drug known to mankind. I think some varation of that might be a standard legislative aide joke.
True, and there also wouldn't be a special session on this if Davis hadn't filibustered the bill.
And the filibuster wouldn't have worked if they had gotten to the bill earlier in the session instead of working 2 day weeks for the first month and deliberately making it a last-day bill so there would be headlines about all their hard work during the session.
