The rule that says you have to have some minimum number of members show up before you can conduct business. It's really common in all manner of public entities. Stops 3 guys from meeting in the dead of night and passing a bunch of bullshit.
I replied to one of the Republican Senator's email updates by explaining that "doing my job" meant debating and voting NO on bills you disagree with, not running away and throwing a tantrum. I also mentioned that Oregon voters passed that law on absenteeism, and would the Republicans respect the will of the people or dispute it? Seems we're getting the answer to that one.
require Medicaid and private insurers to cover more procedures under the umbrella of gender-affirming careThe missing disclaimer: Medicaid and major private insurance companies already cover all of these procedures for cis people. The bill would require them to continue covering what they are already covering for cis people and also cover the same treatment for trans people.
Every fucking news article about so-called "gender-affirming" care needs to prominently inform people of the double standard.
Because Democrats are still operating under the impression that Republicans want to work together to solve the issues facing Americans, while Republicans are simply collecting power and authority.
The R seats are from the areas that keep voting to secede and become part of Idaho. I think it'd take more than your simple observation to move the needle.
I think part of it is "both sides", as Dems have done the same thing. Nobody wants to get arrested, so avoiding the precedent. I'd like to think the idea behind the voter resolution was so "both sides" could tell the other to cut it out without involving law enforcement.
And I have no doubt that if this were to go to the Supreme Court, the Court would rule that while guns are people and must not have their rights restricted, women are not. In fact, it is morally required that women's naughty bits be strictly regulated by old men.
throwing a damn tantrum and losing your seat over it is also covered under the first amendment.
I doubt it came from what the Democrats did in Texas as Oregon Republicans walked out in 2019 and 2020
It's a legitimate tactic as far as I'm concerned, but it's also legitimate for the voters to say there are consequences
ETA: the Texas walkout was in 2021.
The rule that says you have to have some minimum number of members show up before you can conduct business. It's really common in all manner of public entities. Stops 3 guys from meeting in the dead of night and passing a bunch of bullshit.
Repub state legislatures are rat-fucking Democrats with impunity but here, where we have the majority, they still manage to clown us?
I replied to one of the Republican Senator's email updates by explaining that "doing my job" meant debating and voting NO on bills you disagree with, not running away and throwing a tantrum. I also mentioned that Oregon voters passed that law on absenteeism, and would the Republicans respect the will of the people or dispute it? Seems we're getting the answer to that one.
require Medicaid and private insurers to cover more procedures under the umbrella of gender-affirming careThe missing disclaimer: Medicaid and major private insurance companies already cover all of these procedures for cis people. The bill would require them to continue covering what they are already covering for cis people and also cover the same treatment for trans people.
Every fucking news article about so-called "gender-affirming" care needs to prominently inform people of the double standard.
Because Democrats are still operating under the impression that Republicans want to work together to solve the issues facing Americans, while Republicans are simply collecting power and authority.
The R seats are from the areas that keep voting to secede and become part of Idaho. I think it'd take more than your simple observation to move the needle.
If they ACTUALLY lose their jobs, they still have something to lose. How does the giver go about making that happen?
I think part of it is "both sides", as Dems have done the same thing. Nobody wants to get arrested, so avoiding the precedent. I'd like to think the idea behind the voter resolution was so "both sides" could tell the other to cut it out without involving law enforcement.
The First Amendment protects anything I want to do!
Well, now they also get fired, because of Measure 113. That's why I call Measure 113 the Do Your Job Or Get Fired Amendment.
But Shy Guys wear masks, and Republicans don't listen to anyone who wears masks.
That's not how Repubs govern. That how Repubs don't govern.
And I have no doubt that if this were to go to the Supreme Court, the Court would rule that while guns are people and must not have their rights restricted, women are not. In fact, it is morally required that women's naughty bits be strictly regulated by old men.
It's "potentially" because the law has never been applied and tested before. The courts could stall things for a long time.