Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

The first of three planned special sessions of the Florida Legislature ended yesterday with Jacksonville representative Nixon and others attempting to disrupt proceedings to protest the removal of a Democrat majority and Black plurality district in North Florida.
They did delay matters, but the vote proceeded after the door was locked.  
1) We are lucky no one planned to actually be violent yesterday, because it is hard to see how the enacted map comports with either the VRA or with the Florida Constitution.  Does anyone think these new districts are good? You see the lines drawn in not just in Jacksonville but also northwest Orange County and St Petersburg, black neighborhoods are actually split. I understand that it's hard to justify putting Jacksonville's Northside and Tallahassee's westside in the same district. But this goes way beyond that. Pine Hills is separated from Apopka. It's nuts.  Folks haven't split geographically compact Black areas since the 70s.
2) The protesting representatives actually missed two votes, there was another vote to give Reedy Creek a one year expiration date after that.  Was this necessary? Will anyone benefit from that? Will they actually renew it or let it expire?

Disrupting a governmental proceeding..................sounds like an insurrection!

(04-22-2022, 10:49 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Disrupting a governmental proceeding..................sounds like an insurrection!

It could have been if they managed to get a large number of friends into the building.  They definitely could have brought people in if they wanted to.  They didn't.  Not an insurrection.  Nice try though.

(04-23-2022, 07:50 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2022, 10:49 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Disrupting a governmental proceeding..................sounds like an insurrection!

It could have been if they managed to get a large number of friends into the building.  They definitely could have brought people in if they wanted to.  They didn't.  Not an insurrection.  Nice try though.

Really?  I always believed an insurrection attempt was defined by the intent and actions of the participants, rather than simply how many were involved.  What is the requisite number?

(04-23-2022, 08:17 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-23-2022, 07:50 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It could have been if they managed to get a large number of friends into the building.  They definitely could have brought people in if they wanted to.  They didn't.  Not an insurrection.  Nice try though.

Really?  I always believed an insurrection attempt was defined by the intent and actions of the participants, rather than simply how many were involved.  What is the requisite number?

The two who protested were duly elected members.  They were following the constitution by being there and speaking.  In fact, if they had managed convince enough other members of the House to go along with them and break the quorum, that would still be following the Constitution.  The US Code gives a procedure for what happens when a state fails to draw districts, so it's not a crisis. 
It's when people who were not duly elected disrupt things, or when the duly elected intentionally steer things down a road with no constitutional way out, that the words "insurrection" or "coup" become appropriate.
This gets to one of the things that irritates me about the mainstream media and liberals when they talk about January 6.  They say that guys like Josh Hawley were insurrectionists. That's not what the word means. Josh Hawley had no good reason to vote against certification, but, the Constitution and Code says he is allowed to do so, so either way he voted is perfectly constitutional.  He was supposed to be in the room at the time.  And he lost the vote.  Had he won the vote, the Constitution would have provided a path of what to do next, the House would have voted by state delegations.  So Hawley's not the insurrectionist either.  
Really this all becomes clear if you just study law and history a little bit.