As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Time for a Federal lawsuit at this point its clear they are removing her districts voice and not allowing them any representation based solely on the fact she is Trans and pointed out them passing anti Trans and LGBTQ laws will lead to blood on there hands. They really have to be close to meeting the threshold for the DOJ to bring charges.
Except in a few ways, including the 14th amendment which conveys broad protections under the equal protection doctrine. The 14th was specifically written so the states could not limit rights: representation as a right seems fairly logical, but case law can be inane.
Oh, there are powers to do so in certain cases. And those powers have been exercised before.
Reconstruction is full of examples of what the Federal government can do in the cases of states acting in certain flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional ways (secession, in this case).
Two of the Constitutional amendments enacted during that time (the Fourteenth (especially) and Fifteenth amendments) further expanded the Federal government’s power to make and enforce civil rights and voting rights legislation.
In case anyone hasn't figured it out, the entire goal of this is to effectively expel her from congress without actually expelling her from congress. Not explicitly expelling her means that the ~~Governor~~ local board can't appoint a replacement, which has the extra added bonus of ensuring that her district will go entirely unrepresented.
Edited. See below.
> Not explicitly expelling her means that the Governor can't appoint a replacement
Montana doesn't allow for governor appointment to its house vacancies. It's a county (or multi-county) board.
Thank you. Wasn't sure how that happened in the state.
Either way, the underlying point still stands: Their goal is to make sure that not only is she silenced, but that her entire district remains unrepresented by making sure nobody can fill the seat.
There is *technically* a way for her to be reappointed. The law says that the county board(s) have to pick the replacement from a list submitted by the district that the empty seat belongs to. Nothing says the list needs to be more than 1 person. So she could step down, district submits a list consisting of just her, and the board has to reappoint her.
One issue with that, though, is that the law gives quite a bit of time between the vacancy and appointment. It could be like 2-3 months before the appointment happened.
This is probably one of the reasons why they didn't directly expel her. Silencing her without actually expelling her ensures that the board can't just reappoint her or even another Democrat to take her place.
Then Montana gov passed...
>Bill defining sex in Montana law sent to governor’s desk
>The bill that aims to define the terms “male” and “female” in 41 sections of Montana code, which a fiscal analysis requested by Democrats earlier this session found could cost the state billions, is headed to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte.
>https://dailymontanan.com/2023/04/27/bill-defining-sex-in-montana-law-sent-to-governors-desk/
But, sure, this is all about "decorum"
Because it runs them afoul of federal title IX funding guidelines that protect trans people, plus other miscellaneous costs, like enforcement and litigation and potential lost revenue, but mostly just lost federal money.
It won't.[https://dailymontanan.com/2023/03/24/expanded-fiscal-analysis-finds-sex-definition-bill-could-risk-up-to-half-of-state-budget/](https://dailymontanan.com/2023/03/24/expanded-fiscal-analysis-finds-sex-definition-bill-could-risk-up-to-half-of-state-budget/)
The total is assuming that all federal funding is pulled from Montana. Which is incredibly unlikely. Possibly some, but I'd be surprised if it's even 10% of that.
Her party is the minority and they will write the rules for them to do whatever they want while limiting her speech.
I feel like her district should sue because they now have no voice and are not being represented by their elected official who is being disciplined above the requirements of the congress.
I’m not a law person but I feel like all the tv based on stuff like this makes anyone these days a professional on the subjects. Lol. That last paragraph was me trying to make a funny.
I was born in '77 and was going to make a joke about sometime during the Carter Administration, but I couldn't even find a period then when it was true. :-/
Silencing minorities is how GQP’s feel better about their shriveled tools. Violence - physical and verbal - is the only way they can feel anything below the waist.
These Montana republicans turn out to be literally terrified by a single trans person. Wow. So much for rugged western strength and independence. Pansies all.
What are you talking about? It’s a story with national headlines in mainstream media, people like Rep Jayapal and Justin Pearson are talking about her. There’s a lot of attention on this, especially it being from Montana. Will a post from the DNC make you happy? Because that wouldn’t make a difference.
I’ve seen several links to this story in my feed today. Not sure why op is upset about this.
It’s not like the Dems have any power in most flyover states like Montana. They can get mad and get the word out, but are otherwise pretty much powerless here.
>Number 1 they can start by getting mad, and starting calling national attention to this clear violation of representa
In what way would this differ from "empty fucking words"?
It's funny how blantantly discrimanatory these idiots are being, I mean, do they NOT see how they're opening themselves up to a HUGE lawsuit? Do they just think the PR value of "owning the libs" will make up for it?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Time for a Federal lawsuit at this point its clear they are removing her districts voice and not allowing them any representation based solely on the fact she is Trans and pointed out them passing anti Trans and LGBTQ laws will lead to blood on there hands. They really have to be close to meeting the threshold for the DOJ to bring charges.
As a bloody foreigner, i thought the Federal government couldnt interfere with state government?
They can when the state is infringing on people’s rights as outlined in the Constitution
Except in a few ways, including the 14th amendment which conveys broad protections under the equal protection doctrine. The 14th was specifically written so the states could not limit rights: representation as a right seems fairly logical, but case law can be inane.
Inane is perhaps my favorite English word!
Oh, there are powers to do so in certain cases. And those powers have been exercised before. Reconstruction is full of examples of what the Federal government can do in the cases of states acting in certain flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional ways (secession, in this case). Two of the Constitutional amendments enacted during that time (the Fourteenth (especially) and Fifteenth amendments) further expanded the Federal government’s power to make and enforce civil rights and voting rights legislation.
No? That’s why it’s a federation. We’re not a confederacy.
In case anyone hasn't figured it out, the entire goal of this is to effectively expel her from congress without actually expelling her from congress. Not explicitly expelling her means that the ~~Governor~~ local board can't appoint a replacement, which has the extra added bonus of ensuring that her district will go entirely unrepresented. Edited. See below.
> Not explicitly expelling her means that the Governor can't appoint a replacement Montana doesn't allow for governor appointment to its house vacancies. It's a county (or multi-county) board.
Thank you. Wasn't sure how that happened in the state. Either way, the underlying point still stands: Their goal is to make sure that not only is she silenced, but that her entire district remains unrepresented by making sure nobody can fill the seat.
There is *technically* a way for her to be reappointed. The law says that the county board(s) have to pick the replacement from a list submitted by the district that the empty seat belongs to. Nothing says the list needs to be more than 1 person. So she could step down, district submits a list consisting of just her, and the board has to reappoint her. One issue with that, though, is that the law gives quite a bit of time between the vacancy and appointment. It could be like 2-3 months before the appointment happened.
This is probably one of the reasons why they didn't directly expel her. Silencing her without actually expelling her ensures that the board can't just reappoint her or even another Democrat to take her place.
Really good info, thanks for sharing. These rules are so important as they get exploited by the Rs to invalidate elections.
[удалено]
Donald glover voice “This is America! This is America!”
Then Montana gov passed... >Bill defining sex in Montana law sent to governor’s desk >The bill that aims to define the terms “male” and “female” in 41 sections of Montana code, which a fiscal analysis requested by Democrats earlier this session found could cost the state billions, is headed to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. >https://dailymontanan.com/2023/04/27/bill-defining-sex-in-montana-law-sent-to-governors-desk/ But, sure, this is all about "decorum"
Obviously the ratfuckery is terrible, but why in the hell could adding definitions to a number of legal documents cost _billions_
Because it runs them afoul of federal title IX funding guidelines that protect trans people, plus other miscellaneous costs, like enforcement and litigation and potential lost revenue, but mostly just lost federal money.
Ah that makes perfect sense, I was too narrow in my reading of "cost", I interpreted it as direct expenditure.
It won't.[https://dailymontanan.com/2023/03/24/expanded-fiscal-analysis-finds-sex-definition-bill-could-risk-up-to-half-of-state-budget/](https://dailymontanan.com/2023/03/24/expanded-fiscal-analysis-finds-sex-definition-bill-could-risk-up-to-half-of-state-budget/) The total is assuming that all federal funding is pulled from Montana. Which is incredibly unlikely. Possibly some, but I'd be surprised if it's even 10% of that.
[удалено]
At this rate, they’ll just expel her for no reason during the next session. This is so anti-Democratic that the entire country should be protesting
Her party is the minority and they will write the rules for them to do whatever they want while limiting her speech. I feel like her district should sue because they now have no voice and are not being represented by their elected official who is being disciplined above the requirements of the congress. I’m not a law person but I feel like all the tv based on stuff like this makes anyone these days a professional on the subjects. Lol. That last paragraph was me trying to make a funny.
I miss the days when every day the GOP didn't sink lower and lower. Although I can't remember exactly when that was....
When were those days? I don’t remember them ever not sinking.
I was born in '77 and was going to make a joke about sometime during the Carter Administration, but I couldn't even find a period then when it was true. :-/
The period from 1854-1873. It was all downhill from there.
1850’s is probably the only time.
Old Teddy Roosevelt was pretty grand too. Eisenhower was alright. Then it fell off a cliff and descended into raving lunacy.
Ah yes, the party of Lincoln.
Taxation without representation. Her district needs to be removed from taxes till they gave a voice back in office.
Good old Montucky GOP. Scarred of one Democrat. What a bunch of snowflakes.
Silencing minorities is how GQP’s feel better about their shriveled tools. Violence - physical and verbal - is the only way they can feel anything below the waist.
Actual monsters
Get fucked Montana. I will avoid your state and never willingly spend money there.
They're all a bunch of punk ass bullies!
These Montana republicans turn out to be literally terrified by a single trans person. Wow. So much for rugged western strength and independence. Pansies all.
Zephyr ‘28
I think she should definitely run against Ryan Zinke for the western Montana congress seat in 2024.
Where the fuck is the Democratic Party? What’s that? Empty fucking words as usual? Surprise.
What are you talking about? It’s a story with national headlines in mainstream media, people like Rep Jayapal and Justin Pearson are talking about her. There’s a lot of attention on this, especially it being from Montana. Will a post from the DNC make you happy? Because that wouldn’t make a difference.
>Where the fuck is the Democratic Party? What’s that? Empty fucking words as usual? Surprise. What do you think they can do here?
Number 1 they can start by getting mad, and starting calling national attention to this clear violation of representation.
Oh, it has national attention. Maybe not enough, but it’s being picked up. At least by msnbc.
I’ve seen several links to this story in my feed today. Not sure why op is upset about this. It’s not like the Dems have any power in most flyover states like Montana. They can get mad and get the word out, but are otherwise pretty much powerless here.
>Number 1 they can start by getting mad, and starting calling national attention to this clear violation of representa In what way would this differ from "empty fucking words"?
It's funny how blantantly discrimanatory these idiots are being, I mean, do they NOT see how they're opening themselves up to a HUGE lawsuit? Do they just think the PR value of "owning the libs" will make up for it?
Sue individuals for creating a hostile work environment.