Oregon GOP state senators who staged walkout
over abortion can't run for reelection,
high court says
Just the News,
by
Madeleine Hubbard
Original Article
Posted By: Beardo,
2/1/2024 3:42:38 PM
The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that 10 Republican state senators are ineligible to run for reelection after they participated in a quorum-denying walkout for six weeks last year to stall legislation on abortion, transgender treatments and firearms.
The high court decided in favor of Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, who had disqualified the senators from running for office again after voters approved a measure in 2022 to amend the state constitution to ban lawmakers with more than 10 unexcused absences from running again.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Sardonic 2/1/2024 3:56:03 PM (No. 1648983)
This was a sham law passed by Portland - Eugene (read ultra leftist) voters as requested by the Democrats in Salem to force more of their anti-gun, anti-business, anti whatever laws down the throats of all Oregonians.
43 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 2/1/2024 3:58:20 PM (No. 1648985)
A retroactively applied law? Me thinks that is un-Constitutional.
71 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
formerNYer 2/1/2024 4:07:03 PM (No. 1648992)
The Notzee's are in charge in ore-GONE
40 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bpl40 2/1/2024 4:09:54 PM (No. 1648993)
People who voted for these 10 Senators are being unconstitutionally denied representation. This should go straight to the SCOTUS
59 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 2/1/2024 4:11:40 PM (No. 1648996)
Not ex post facto. Constitution was changed in 2022 in response to walkouts in 2019, 2020 and 2021. These senators walked out in 2023.
Still gotta wonder how many dems would ever be disqualified if it is at the sole discretion of the SOS? Did they define unexcused absence? After all, walkouts are an extremely common tactic of dems. My guess is a similar action by the left would be lauded as a courageous act of honor in the defense of democracy.
28 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 2/1/2024 4:50:22 PM (No. 1649006)
It's called lawfare folks. We no longer have a representative government anymore.
47 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
thekidsmom66 2/1/2024 4:55:52 PM (No. 1649009)
Well, isn't that convenient?? And when will Republicans start fighting this kind of fire with like fire in other states?!
30 people like this.
Oregoon secretary of state with a hyphenated surname. Take a look at her photo, and you'll see a goobermint parasite living at the public trough.
24 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Ruthless 2/1/2024 5:07:46 PM (No. 1649014)
Who cares. It isn't as if Oregon suddenly runs honest elections. Any human with half a brain has NEVER been in the running in ANY election in that hairy, reeking, armpit of a sewer.
18 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 2/1/2024 5:45:06 PM (No. 1649030)
OP is exactly right. Absolutely unconstitutional.
21 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
bighambone 2/1/2024 5:48:56 PM (No. 1649035)
Unfortunately the wimpy Republicans are going to find themselves thrown off election ballots in the future by way of leftist and socialist Democrat law fare actions in many of the leftist and socialist Democrat States. In this case they will probably be off the ballots until after the election and until after some leftist and socialist Democrat appeals court decides to hear their appeal.
12 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
itsonlyme 2/1/2024 6:02:34 PM (No. 1649042)
Yes, the Knotseez wear black robes. If you allow it, they will trample all over you.
12 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
oldretiredDAT 2/1/2024 6:03:30 PM (No. 1649043)
So, when you vote NO on a bill that passes, will the Dems then say you can't run for reelection? I kind of agree with the idea behind this, but it is the PEOPLE who should vote to either reelect them or not reelect them.
13 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Scribelus 2/1/2024 6:45:50 PM (No. 1649057)
Lesser Moronia trends lesser and lesser. The abyss beckons.
12 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Yepper 2/1/2024 7:21:36 PM (No. 1649070)
#5, All state constitutions are null and void whenever they contradict the US Constitution, genius. When was the US Constitution amended to allow ex post facto laws?
14 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
anniebc 2/1/2024 9:38:07 PM (No. 1649130)
It's only good and right when the other side does it.
7 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 2/1/2024 10:17:37 PM (No. 1649147)
There is the distinct odor of liberalism about this. Barf alert was not included in the post.
7 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
FleetUSA 2/2/2024 7:52:14 AM (No. 1649289)
How quickly could the Supremes act? Like molasses in January?
6 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Zigrid 2/2/2024 11:38:16 AM (No. 1649412)
With no covid shut down to help them this time...the rats are going into court...changing the rulings and trying to win that way...
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
janjan 2/2/2024 4:55:03 PM (No. 1649574)
It looks like the US SC is going to be busy leading up to the election. We’re playing whack a mole with the desperate Democrats who have to cheat to win. I don’t necessarily agree with what the State Senators were doing but at the time there was no law against it. This is very similar to what New York did with the whack job accusing Trump of rape after the statute of limitations passed. No problemo. Just change the law and apply it retroactively. They’re liars and criminals.
4 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Beardo"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
From Wikipedia: "An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. . . . Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws)." I am not an expert in this area of the law, and I realize that there are some exceptions to the prohibition of ex post facto laws, however, this situation is the exact reason for the prohibition. This is more bad faith democrat election interference. I also think that the statute passed by New York that circumvented the statute of limitations so that Jean Carroll could sue Trump, is unconstitutional on the alternative grounds of ex post facto, and as a bill of attainder.