• 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!

Oregon SC: Oregon's runaway State GOP members may not run in 2024

B

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
9,176
Reaction score
7,115
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...S&cvid=1bf12dead69d439686cb1ff85a3ef149&ei=20

"Last year, 10 Republican state senators in Oregon walked out of the Legislature for six weeks to obstruct Democratic bills promoting reproductive rights, transgender equality, and gun safety. The GOP senators’ boycott paralyzed the chamber, stalling hundreds of bills by preventing lawmakers from conducting any work. Their hardball tactic succeeded in the short term, forcing Democrats to water down their signature measures. On Thursday, however, it backfired badly: The Oregon Supreme Court unanimously prohibited all 10 senators from running for reelection, enforcing a constitutional provision designed to punish this kind of petulant legislative obstruction."

The constitutional provision was one of the voters creation, by virtue of statewide petition and initiative in response to a previous walkout which passed 68% to 32% in Nov. 2022. I remember at the time voting 'yes' and hoping that it was very carefully written to avoid successful challenges. Of course it wasn't because these initiatives rarely are. Historically,they are comparatively sloppily written. Sure enough The GOP found their legal loophole sitting in the ambiguity of interpretation of the language describing the specific term from which they were banned from running. Was it the 2024, or 2028 if they walked out of the 2022 session? The Oregon Supreme Court basically looked at the likely legislative intent of the literal 'legislators' ie the voters to figure out what their understanding was. It was informed by media representations, by the Oregon voters pamplet descriptions, and by the desciptions on ballot itself were there was no ambiguity. Nobody pointed out any such 'ambiguity' until the GOP Senators suing pointed found one years later.

I like this penalty and I like what it attempts to do. We cannot have the kind of chaos and obstructionist tactics these walk-outs produce in every legislative body that requires a quorum from county commissions, to city councils, to library and school boards. It used to be that these walk-outs were symbolic one day efforts to protest parlamentary chicanery by legislative majorities or committee chairs, a dramatic statement of outrage by the minority but they were not really intended to shut down all legislation for entire sessions until the minority extort concessions on the legislative agenda. There needs to be a penalty, for elections to have the consequences that we expect them to have, when we vote a new party into control.

Note the link tries to draw some lessons with efforts to keep Trump off state ballots now. This OP was put in this subforum to keep the focus on state politics not national politics and a federal election. I want to focus on quorums, and on walk outs/boycotts and on possible solutions to their disruptive impact on legislative and administrative work. It you want to discuss Donald Trump and whether he should be on ballots, please make your own thread and don't hijack this one.
 
Last edited:
I read about this, and was considering a thread. Thanks for posting it. I love it when the people discipline their representatives, and when the judiciary honors that intent.
 

Oregon high court says 10 GOP state senators who staged long walkout (regarding abortion & guns) can’t run for reelection

This is just too funny. Basically, Oregon voters put an amendment in their state constitution that you can only miss so much unexcused time or you can't run again. Oh well. FAFO. "The Oregon Supreme Court said Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

Oregon high court says 10 GOP state senators who staged long walkout can’t run for reelection

This is why shit never gets done. https://apnews.com/article/oregon-republican-walkout-reelection-f1d270db9e9a72935c13b973d79a4bb7 SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court said Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last year to stall bills on...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com
 
Missed those
 
Hopefully this will be a lesson for other elected officials. Voters expect those elected to work. Sitting out and stalling legislation does nobody any good.
 
Oops. In any case I wanted my thread/link in this subforum, so as to broaden the topic to include the parlimentary quandry and the tactic all over the place, and preclude discussion of the orange man.
 
My constitutional point here, is that when interpreting an ambiguous law or constitutional amendment, by looking at the literal language or text and learning the original legislative intent behind the law change, absolutely makes sense especially when there was a universal interpretation going into its creation, and likewise a universal interpretation coming out and when the timeframe is short as it was in the four year time frame here. Establishing original intent, and literal texualist interpretations does not preclude a jurist from also weighing a more pragmatic legal realism or living constitutionalist approach as well should the cultural and legal span be longer and more impactful

What approach to constitutional interpretation, a jurist picks, is likely based on philosophic views, and personal/ professional experience and on a range of circumstances around a specific case and its likely impact on the law, and the people impacted by it. to mix in a cooking metaphor, the final result of the recipe for success in any given jurists opinion, depends on amounts of these ingrediants as well as the ingrediant list itself.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to join that discussion, especially as it is your thread.

I am largely an opponent to "originalism" as it is expressed by the ersatz "practitioners", promoted by the Federalist Society, and used as a faux rationale for obviously ideological rulings. Dobbs, Bruen, Shelby County, Hobby Lobby, etc. have all used fake "originalism" analyses, and as a lifetime constitutional practitioner, they sicken me - because there is a principled way of incorporating original intent, but they adamantly refuse to do that. Dobbs is a great example, but Shelby County is probably the most stark in its absolute disregard of original intent in furtherance of an extremist ideology.

If one is honest, both Dobbs and Shelby County reach conclusions that are directly contrary to "original intent". Both are essentially grounded in the 14th Amendment, and that amendment was radical, but in a way that ideologues detest: it guaranteed equality and encroached on State prerogatives. Since its passage, the Supreme Court has been trying, largely successfully, to eviscerated it - not based on original intent, but because of that intent. I'm sick of that, but more specifically, sick of the blatant dishonesty.
 
A point that is overlooked.

States like Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Indiana and others that have quorum requirements greater than a majority of members currently elected and sworn should have their State Constitutions amended to reduce the quorum requirement to a simple majority of members elected and sworn, as is the case with the United States Congress.

That solves the issue completely, as boycotting the legislature would then be a useless gesture by a minority member.
 
Ideally, I am for balance on the court. You want to provide a vaste array of experience, ideology and judicial philosophy among those 9 members so that all balance that gets reflected in the majority, minority and concurring opinions. That is clearly not happening in modern Washington, if it ever did, but I think its the best argument for expanding the court to 15 members. Even before the hyperpartisan days now, you had the 'East coast Harvard professorial elitist' dominance, the dominance of social and cultural conservativism and its traditionalist bias.

You need space for progressives and conservatives, originalists, textualists and living constitutionalists, expertise in litigation, criminal, civil, and international law, as well as some background in tax law, military law, and corporate ,family and now election law. And then there is the value of added life experience. Not a bad thing to have minorities, women, older and younger generations sitting on that panel. Not a bad thing to have Christians, atheists or even a muslim or Hindu thrown in there. Its valuable to have people who grew up on a farm, on a reservation, or on Castro Street in San Francisco.

Its also of value to spread out the impact of one President or two that dominate nomination. I see value beyond getting passed the new McConnell rule for accepting a president's nominee for consideration (whatever benefits my party, my ideology, my caucus) or to right a partisan wrong. That is frankly, the worst reason to do it. Its just a good idea regardless of the Garland debacle.
 
Last edited:

I am prochoice, but had mixed feelings in regards to Dobbs. Substantive due process has always been a trainwreck, from its introduction in Dred Scott v Sandford.

If liberals regain a majority on the Supreme Court, they should NOT, I repeat NOT attempt to resurrect the Roe/Casey regime.

Instead, they should find an unenumerated right of privacy using the 9th Amendment and proceed from there, not invoking substantive due process.
 
Someone proposed 10-year terms, limited to one reappointment, and that the terms be fixed, so every President got at least two picks, and any "extra" appointments were limited to filling out an existing term. I also favor expanding the court to 13 - one for each circuit.
 
mike2810 said:
Hopefully this will be a lesson for other elected officials. Voters expect those elected to work. Sitting out and stalling legislation does nobody any good.
Click to expand...
You could almost call it "a paper insurrection".
 

That didn't work the last time, so what makes you think it will work this time?
Roe was BASED on privacy and we see what that got us.
 
I Like everything except that I am not a fan of that 'extra appointments filling out an existing term' part. There is enough efforts to game the timing of circuit court decisions and appeals as it is. I think its sufficient to dilute the collective impact that 'extra appointment' President Smith gets to make through happenstance. Its one thing to have a few lame duck court justices involved in the decisionmaking, its another to have inexperienced lame duck court justices who will only hang around 5 months in total.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
That didn't work the last time, so what makes you think it will work this time?
Roe was BASED on privacy and we see what that got us.
Click to expand...

But it was NOT based on an unenumerated right of privacy in the 9th Amendment. Rather, it was based on a convoluted theory of privacy using substantive process of law, which was why the original Roe v Wade decision just comes off as a mess.

Next time, use the 9th Amendment, not substantive due process.
 
You say "useless gesture," but yet opposition parties in third-world countries boycott elections all the time and lose them. I've never figured out the point of doing that, either. If we can answer the latter, it seems we can answer the purpose of the former.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.