Republicans Trying to Start a Civil War in Texas

#504
#504
We should just blow up the United States at this point. These power thirsty, morally bankrupt, corrupt P's OS are going to ruin us anyway. Just blow it up and get it over with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
#505
#505
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

Let all just go ahead and gerrymander. Get on with it and get it over with.

I wonder what the breakdown would forecast to be if all the states just went ahead and maxed out their districts.

- California is already 43-9 (83% D) so not sure how many more they could get.
- New York is currently 19-7 (73% D) so I bet they could squeeze some out.
- Texas is at 25-12 (67% R) they can definitely squeeze.
- Florida currently 20-8 (71% R) so very similar to NY.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#506
#506
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...


Heh. Wishful thinking.

The Dems ain't gonna be arrested nor will they be fired.

Truth is they'll likely return prior to the December deadline for the redistricting vote by their own... volition. Heh.

That's a long time to be away from home, family and work...


Texas Democratic legislators who left the state to break quorum cannot be directly "fired" by the governor or other officials, as their removal from office is governed by specific legal processes outlined in the Texas Constitution and state law. Here’s a clear breakdown:

- **Quorum Break and Legal Context**: Over 50 Texas House Democrats left the state starting August 3, 2025, to prevent a quorum (the minimum number of legislators needed to conduct business, which is 100 out of 150 members in the Texas House). They did this to block a Republican-backed redistricting plan that could add up to five GOP-leaning congressional seats. This tactic, known as a quorum break, is legal under the Texas Constitution, which allows lawmakers to decide whether to appear for a quorum.[](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-redistricting-democrats-quorum-break-greg-abbott/)[](https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/05/texas-democrats-ken-paxton-court-vacate-seats-quorum-break/)[](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/state/texas-democrats-leave-state-legal-republicans/287-07a007c7-555c-44a4-a11a-2dc64d232662)

- **Can They Be Removed?**: Governor Greg Abbott and others have threatened to remove these lawmakers from office, citing a 2021 nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton (KP-0382). This opinion suggests that a court could determine a legislator has "abandoned" their office, potentially creating a vacancy. However, legal experts argue this is inconsistent with the Texas Constitution, as breaking quorum does not equate to abandoning office. Removal would require:
- A court ruling in a quo warranto proceeding, initiated by the attorney general or a district attorney, not the governor. Paxton has stated he would file such actions against absent Democrats if they didn’t return by August 8, 2025.[](https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/05/texas-democrats-ken-paxton-court-vacate-seats-quorum-break/)[](https://www.newsweek.com/can-greg-abbott-kick-out-fleeing-democrats-experts-weigh-2108694)
- Alternatively, a two-thirds vote by the Texas House to expel a member, as occurred in 2023 with Republican Rep. Byron Slaton for misconduct.[](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-redistricting-democrats-quorum-break-greg-abbott/)[](https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/05/texas-democrats-ken-paxton-court-vacate-seats-quorum-break/)
- There is no precedent in Texas history for removing lawmakers solely for breaking quorum, and such an action would likely face significant legal challenges.[](https://www.newsweek.com/can-greg-abbott-kick-out-fleeing-democrats-experts-weigh-2108694)

- **Other Consequences**: While removal is unlikely without judicial or legislative action, the absent Democrats face other penalties:
- **Fines**: A $500 daily fine for each day they are absent without leave, established after a 2021 quorum break.[](https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1953884682845601794)[](https://time.com/7307814/texas-democrats-redistricting-quorum-fbi-locate-arrest-abbott-paxton-trump/)[](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/state/texas-democrats-leave-state-legal-republicans/287-07a007c7-555c-44a4-a11a-2dc64d232662)
- **Operational Penalties**: House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced measures like cutting 30% of their office budgets, banning newsletters, and requiring in-person paycheck pickup (no direct deposit).[](https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1953884682845601794)
- **Civil Arrest Warrants**: The Texas House voted to issue civil arrest warrants to compel absent lawmakers’ return. However, these warrants are unenforceable outside Texas, as the lawmakers fled to Democratic-led states like Illinois and New York, which are unlikely to cooperate.[](https://time.com/7307814/texas-democrats-redistricting-quorum-fbi-locate-arrest-abbott-paxton-trump/)[](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/state/texas-democrats-leave-state-legal-republicans/287-07a007c7-555c-44a4-a11a-2dc64d232662)[](https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-democrats-quorum-redistricting-abbott/)
- **Bribery Allegations**: Abbott and others have suggested that accepting funds to cover fines or expenses could constitute bribery, a second-degree felony. However, legal scholars note Texas has loose ethics laws, and proving bribery would be difficult.[](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-redistricting-democrats-quorum-break-greg-abbott/)[](https://time.com/7307814/texas-democrats-redistricting-quorum-fbi-locate-arrest-abbott-paxton-trump/)[](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/04/greg-abbott-legal-actions-texas-democrats/85509192007/)

- **Legal and Practical Limits**: Legal experts, including Charles “Rocky” Rhodes and Chad Dunn, argue that quorum-breaking is a legitimate legislative tactic protected by the Texas Constitution. The governor lacks unilateral authority to declare seats vacant, and courts would need to establish intent to abandon office, which is not evident in a temporary quorum break. Historically, quorum breaks (e.g., 1979, 2003, 2021) have delayed but not prevented legislation, and no lawmakers have been removed for this action.[](https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/05/texas-democrats-ken-paxton-court-vacate-seats-quorum-break/)[](https://www.newsweek.com/can-greg-abbott-kick-out-fleeing-democrats-experts-weigh-2108694)[](https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/special-session/texas-democrats-leave-state-redistricting-quorum/269-6919f7c5-ec57-49a6-bc3a-ad7cf84aa683)

- **What Happens Next?**: The special session ends August 19, 2025, but Abbott can call additional sessions until the December 8, 2025, candidate filing deadline for the 2026 midterms. Democrats aim to delay the redistricting vote, but past quorum breaks (e.g., 2021) suggest Republicans may eventually pass the maps. Any attempt to remove lawmakers would likely lead to court challenges, potentially setting new legal precedents.[](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/state/texas-democrats-leave-state-legal-republicans/287-07a007c7-555c-44a4-a11a-2dc64d232662)[](https://www.newsweek.com/can-greg-abbott-kick-out-fleeing-democrats-experts-weigh-2108694)[](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-house-democrats-plan-flee-state-stop-proposed/story?id=124326241)

In summary, while Governor Abbott and others have threatened removal, Texas Democrats cannot be easily "fired" for leaving the state. Removal requires a court or legislative process, and legal experts consider it unlikely based on current law and precedent. However, the lawmakers face fines, operational penalties, and civil arrest warrants if they return to Texas.[](https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/05/texas-democrats-ken-paxton-court-vacate-seats-quorum-break/)[](https://www.newsweek.com/can-greg-abbott-kick-out-fleeing-democrats-experts-weigh-2108694)
 
#511
#511
hog88 said:
It’s astonishing anyone would believe that the illegal immigrant population hasn’t increased in 20 years.

Remember the Biden administration telling us illegal immigration was down when there were caravans of thousands crossing the border?
Click to expand...
Remember it was Biden and Clinton who both said that soon white people will be the minority in America and they all said it's a good thing. So yes, they did their best to flood America with Mexican democratic voters. It's sad that so many white liberals hate their country
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and W.TN.Orange Blood
#513
#513
So the Communist States are going to try to redraw their states again, but they have essentially have no Republicans Representatives anyways
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#515
#515
Funny listening to Illinois governor Pritzker defend Illinois’s hyper gerrymandered Congressional districts when the absolute blimp of a man IS his own congressional district 😂
 
#516
#516
LMFAO .... this moron democrat idiot clown 🤡 is so FOS nobody believes him.
They (democrats) need to keep this idiot away from doing any TV interview(s).
 
Last edited:
#522
#522
MontyPython said:
No. It eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. Their ruling returned the power to regulate or ban abortion to individual states. Sorry if that came out sideways... Such a touchy subject.
Click to expand...
there was never a constitutional right to abortion. the feds had previously stepped in and kept states from making their own determination, very anti 10A. which is why the supreme court pulled it from the feds power.

this is why you guys can't be trusted. you use very misleading language to make your argument stronger, and even when corrected you just pivot to more misleading language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 85SugarVol, Vol since 77 and 4 others
#523
#523
LouderVol said:
there was never a constitutional right to abortion. the feds had previously stepped in and kept states from making their own determination, very anti 10A. which is why the supreme court pulled it from the feds power.

this is why you guys can't be trusted. you use very misleading language to make your argument stronger, and even when corrected you just pivot to more misleading language.
Click to expand...

100 % not true.

Not sure why you feel compelled to put forth revisionist history.

Before the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the constitutional right to an abortion was established by Roe v. Wade (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In Roe, the Court held that the right to privacy, derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, encompassed a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. This right was not absolute; it was balanced against state interests, allowing regulations after the first trimester and prohibitions after fetal viability, except when necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. Casey upheld Roe’s core holding but replaced the trimester framework with the "undue burden" standard, protecting the right to an abortion before viability.

The Dobbs decision overturned Roe and Casey, ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning regulatory authority to the states. Thus, prior to Dobbs, a constitutional right to an abortion existed under the framework of Roe and Casey.
 
#524
#524
MontyPython said:
100 % not true.

Not sure why you feel compelled to put forth revisionist history.

Before the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the constitutional right to an abortion was established by Roe v. Wade (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In Roe, the Court held that the right to privacy, derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, encompassed a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. This right was not absolute; it was balanced against state interests, allowing regulations after the first trimester and prohibitions after fetal viability, except when necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. Casey upheld Roe’s core holding but replaced the trimester framework with the "undue burden" standard, protecting the right to an abortion before viability.

The Dobbs decision overturned Roe and Casey, ruling that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning regulatory authority to the states. Thus, prior to Dobbs, a constitutional right to an abortion existed under the framework of Roe and Casey.
Click to expand...

You just proved Louder's argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, UT_Dutchman, LouderVol and 1 other person
#525
#525
hog88 said:
You just proved Louder's argument.
Click to expand...
I must be confused… so up is down and black is white in your world. Am I getting that right? Because the rest of America… we recognize and understand the reality that yes, of course the Constitution established the right to an abortion. We silly folks also recognize that rain comes out of clouds… which must be equally mystifying to you.

But by all means, I’d love to peer into your Bizarro-world of nut jobs. Gimme a link.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top