Capitol now open; Assembly session delayed (repubs can't get in the building)

[Snoutport]

Source: WKOW Madison

The 11 a.m. Assembly session has been delayed while police secure the area. Some Representatives are locked out of the building. One Republican representative says he's spent a half hour trying to enter the building.

Read more: http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14224129

---

They can't vote if they can't get in the buidling!

[myrna minx]

1. K&R n/t

[KansDem]

2. "One Republican representative says he's spent a half hour trying to enter the building."

Tell him to use the can in the 7/11 down the street...

[Tx4obama]

8. Now he knows how the dem lawmakers that were locked out feel.

Also, the DEMS key access cards were deactivated last week.
The republicans are cry babies!

[KansDem]

13. "the DEMS key access cards were deactivated last week."

:wtf:

I hadn't heard/read that!

What "cry babies," indeed!

[Tx4obama]

14. Here's a link

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/tackled_wisconsin_representative_says_his_capitol_key_card_is_disabled.php?ref=fpa

[idrahaje]

16. can't imagine what would happen to one if the cops threw one to the ground ??

Go to fox??? oh but it's the capitol police who last night seemed they even had enough.

[HereSince1628]

3. Gee, how could THAT happen? There are tunnels

that the r's escaped by last night. Didn't the message get around to the Assembly?

[bluestateguy]

4. This is the most practical way to stop things

Not lawsuits, not letter writing, not stupid e-petitions that no one reads, not waiting around for Obama to show up, but physically blocking the Assembly building.

I don'r think the cops will put up much effort to stop them either (their bargaining rights are being taken away too).

[ehrnst]

5. I thought that police and firefighters were exempt from the bill.

State troopers are another story - they're led by Fitzgerald's father...

[Shiver]

6. Police are exempt

But they stand with the unions, regardless.

[Wait Wut]

7. "Police are exempt" for now.

I still believe this is just the first step. Walker thinks everyone will give in and just live with this crap. Once things settle down, the other shoe will drop.

Pretty sure that's another reason the police and firefighters are fighting this. They aren't stupid.

[Shiver]

9. Oh definitely.

I can't remember what state it was, but there was a state where they broke the unions, exempting the police and firefighters, and then the next year did it to them too.

[Snoutport]

10. were they exempt in this new bill?

[Wait Wut]

22. I would imagine Walker figured...

...he'd look like a complete ass if he went after police and fire unions. Kind of like if someone is going to punch you in the face and they tell you to close your eyes so it doesn't hurt as much. It probably also had something to do with (I believe) the police union actually backing the turd during the election.

[Wait Wut]

23. Oops.

Thought you said "why were they".

Yes, they were. That's what gives the protests that warm, fuzzy feeling when you see cops and firemen out there.

[Snoutport]

30. cool

i wondered if they had monkeyed with that in the breakaway bill.

[rayofreason]

11. So you support fascist tactics??

Don't like who was elected and what they plan to do, so you think it is good idea to keep them physically from meeting to legislate?

What a load of crap. You should be ashamed of yourself. The correct way to deal with the situation is to defeat those representatives at the ballot box. If you can't do that then you have no right to stop them from passing any law they choose to pass. What do you think people would have said here at the DU if tea party folks has besieged the US House and prevented Dem representatives from entering to vote on health care reform. After all, if only a handful had been forcibly excluded from the vote it would have gone the other way and there would be no law, imperfect as it is. Is that your idea of good governance? Sheesh.

[Snoutport]

12. i support a great big group hug around the capitol

no force there, just love of the common man.

[rayofreason]

17. As long as the "hug"...

..does nothing to impede the public business, there is nothing wrong with that. But the moment a "hugger" starts to act like a "mugger" the hammer should come down hard.

[Snoutport]

19. i haven't seen a single call for violence. only restraint.

[rayofreason]

21. I would not call...

...cheerleading for the blocking of the meeting of the legislature "restraint."

Just browse this and relate threads on DU an you will find plenty of sentiments that can be boiled down to "We have to stop them at all costs because they have the votes!"

Disgusting.

[LanternWaste]

24. Does that line of reasoning also apply to

Does that line of reasoning also apply to the acts of disobedience of thew Civil Rights movement such as the Greensboro sit-in? If not, what are the precise and relevant differences?

[rayofreason]

27. The civil rights movement...

...was not an attempt to frustrate the democratic process. It was an effort to secure the rights of citizens under the 14th amendment. And at no time did it involve attempts to impede legislation through extra-legal means. On the contrary, the great victories, like the Civil Rights Act, were legislative victories that passed into law what (most) people knew to be right and just.

[LanternWaste]

34. Precisely how then was the Greensboro sit-in legal?

"And at no time did it involve attempts to impede legislation through extra-legal means...."

Precisely how then was the Greensboro sit-in legal?

[Oak2004]

25. Last time I checked, fascists have never used the tactic of nonviolent civil disobedience

nor have they ever stood up for the rights of ordinary people, given that they don't believe in individual rights for the masses.

And if I recall my history, fascists have often come to power through "legal" means, and then consolidated their power through legalistic crap, getting the naive and narrow minded to support them by invoking legalities over the actual spirit of democratic process.

Pot, meet kettle.

False equivalences get to looking ridiculous here after a while.

[rayofreason]

28. You think that...

...a group of people physically preventing a legislature from enacting laws for which there are sufficient votes is "civil disobedience?" Then you would have no problem with similar tactics blocking the healthcare reform law. Just a few votes missing and it would have gone the other way.

So is this they way politics should be done? If there is a close vote, just send a bunch of your "supporters" to blockade legislators from other side so they can't get to the chamber to vote! Simple! We can Win!!! Sounds like the late Roman Republic to me, when you could bribe the Pontifex Maximus to declare a day inauspicious and thus put off a vote for legislation you did not want but could not stop because the other side has the votes. Maybe you could even do that enough days in a row so that the term of office of the proposer expires. Shall we go down the path of the Graachi, Marius, Cinna, and Sulla? And then on which end of the Proscriptions will you be?

Everyone here who is cheering attempts to stop the legislature from voting should be ashamed of themselves and should reexamine their commitment to the democratic process - which includes that if you lose the election the other side gets control of the ability to make the laws. There will always be another election for you to make your case. And if you can't win the votes, you have no right to dictate policy.

[LanternWaste]

35. You have precisely defined a Sit-In...

"...a group of people physically preventing a legislature from enacting laws for which there are sufficient votes is "civil disobedience?"

You have precisely defined a Sit-In... used quite frequently (and with positive net-gain effects I may ad) during the civil rights movements.

[plumbob]

29. Here's the founders idea of good government:

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

It's from a doc called the Declaration of Independence, and according to the folks who built this country, anytime despotism gets the upper hand, THROW OFF such government. Nothing in here says we have to take the votes as offered. They did not believe that any government was appointed by God or had any particular right to exist except to serve.

I'll stand with the Declaration.

Voting? Here's a little bit on voting:

Boris Bazhanov's Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary, published in 1992 and so far as I know only available in Russian.

The pertinent passage, which appears near the end of Chapter Five, reads as follows (loosely translated):

You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

[rayofreason]

31. Gimme a break.

Your idea of despotism is LOSING AN ELECTION? Then what are elections for - just something to concur with your world view? How ridiculous and childish. Just as childish as quoting Stalin, suggesting that a Wisconsin election has any correspondence to elections in socialist states.

Face it (even though you don't want to). The Republicans won in 2010. So until they lose, they are by all rights in charge. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply not willing to live by democratic rules in which you can lose an election, and losses have consequences. Want to change things? Win. That happened in 2008 and legislation flowed from that victory, as is proper. Unless, of course, you want to claim that that is despotism.

[plumbob]

32. If you don't think that locking the public out of their own capital building,

locking Democratic reps out by invalidating their keys, by meeting illegally to pass "laws" that destroy long-established protections for workers and enable one man to sell off assets of the state without any review to his billionaire masters is not despotism, well, be happy.

You evidently believe that the tyranny of the majority is okay, and that is assuming that those elections were fairly counted. Where were you when the votes were not counted in Florida, and Bush was installed by the Supreme Court? Just another "loss" to accept?

Meanwhile, the lawful process of recall is just begun. Hope you will concede that's legal, even though the dictator of Wisconsin has expressed his own doubts.

Have a nice life.

Thanks for trivializing the founding of the country and for thinking Stalin is a comedian. Those are different takes than most folk, and I salute you for creating and maintaining your own reality.

[rayofreason]

33. Recalls? Absolutely!

That is the way to deal with the situation. Now, not all of the Reps may be vulnerable to recall elections,

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/daily-fix-poll/will-the-wisconsin-recall-effo.html

but enough are. While difficult, the laws provide a legal route to recall, which is much preferable to tantrums that cannot have any legitimate impact on legislation.

And just because a government does not do what you want, that does does mean that it is despotism. I am in favor of legalized drugs. I recognize that this is a minority view and legalization will not happen soon. Is this the "tyranny of the majority?" I would be foolish and self-centered to believe so. True tyranny is when a minority imposes its views on everyone else.

The Founders viewed British rule as despotism because they had no say in that rule, especially regarding taxation. If we had been represented in Parliament it would have been a different story. In Wisconsin people do have a say - they get to vote, and that includes recall elections. And to argue that when the vote goes against you it is despotism is childish.

[damntexdem]

15. What, Guv Walker is going to wait for the bill to "pass" before he signs it? Why?

He and the GOPers in the WI Senate and Assembly don't follow other rules and laws, so why wait for a bill to pass before signing it into lawlessness?

[jwirr]

18. Hey rethugs - look - tourism is really booming in WI, just look at all the

people wanting to see the capital. :sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

20. DEMOCRATIC Lawmaker Denied Entrance to Wisconsin Capitol

http://www.politicususa.com/en/democrat-denied-wisconsin

[Snoutport]

26. good way to make the point

thanks for backing us up!