Oregon Bill makes it illegal to question laws

[titsonritz]

Then help out the people doing the work in the courts. It takes money to work these lawsuits, Donate to whichever group you believe is doing something worthwhile.

You can roll over and just take it if you like, but it's rather cowardly to suggest others do the heavy lifting for you.

What makes you think I don't?

 

[PiratePast40]

What makes you think I don't?

You do you, but denigrating others for working through the legislature is undermining our efforts. We have a massive problem in Oregon with ballot integrity and RHINOs undercutting conservatives. The only hope we have is for people to be involved and take action. Laughing at those that are trying to make a difference is playing into the game plan of the opposition.

 

[156256Hunter]

We can't be having some country-bumpkin hayseed for a County Judge throwing a spanner into the tyrannical agenda now, can we?

Obviously, any challenge needs to be heard only by judges who may rub elbows with the legislators (and others in political circles) in Salem. This is just overt forum shopping in response to what's occurred over the past several months

 

[arakboss]

Does a resident have to file suits in the county they reside in?

What if damages occur in Marion County but the plaintiff lives in another county?

 

[icqraid]

It's called forum shopping. Doing some internet searches will tell you about it and give you a history of its use and precedent. It doesn't perfectly fit in this scenario however as they wrote it into the bill.

Basically in forum shopping, you choose the venue you think you will have the best chance of winning in. The precedent typically favors the plaintiff as they are the (legal) party bringing up the challenge. In most of the cases I read, the use of forum shopping was typically done with options of state vs federal courts of issues with out of state plaintiffs or out of state venues.

On an editorial note, I think this issue smacks of checks and balances and our three branches of government. It is the legislature exerting power into our judicial branch.

 

[RX-79G]

It's called forum shopping. Doing some internet searches will tell you about it and give you a history of its use and precedent. It doesn't perfectly fit in this scenario however as they wrote it into the bill.

Basically in forum shopping, you choose the venue you think you will have the best chance of winning in. The precedent typically favors the plaintiff as they are the (legal) party bringing up the challenge. In most of the cases I read, the use of forum shopping was typically done with options of state vs federal courts of issues with out of state plaintiffs or out of state venues.

On an editorial note, I think this issue smacks of checks and balances and our three branches of government. It is the legislature exerting power into our judicial branch.

Kind of like gerrymandering, then.

 

[titsonritz]

You do you, but denigrating others for working through the legislature is undermining our efforts. We have a massive problem in Oregon with ballot integrity and RHINOs undercutting conservatives. The only hope we have is for people to be involved and take action. Laughing at those that are trying to make a difference is playing into the game plan of the opposition.

Whatever floats your boat dude.

 

[uberguy]

Whats a "real" democracy?
Were a Representative Democracy... our representatives listen to what gets them elected. If my opinion isnt winning it tells me im in a minority. I dont think most Oregonians care about their gun rights.

We are actually a constitutional republic, and popular opinion doesn't over-ride constitutional rights, unless a super-majority changes the constitution. Most citizens don't know diddly based on scholastic grading and man-on-the-street pop questions on how govt. works.

 

[Koda]

We are actually a constitutional republic, and popular opinion doesn't over-ride constitutional rights, unless a super-majority changes the constitution. Most citizens don't know diddly based on scholastic grading and man-on-the-street pop questions on how govt. works.

Ive always understood we are a Federal Republic. Im not pretending to be a government scholar or historian but it sounds to me that if a super majority changes the constitution that the people voted their representatives in, then thats when majority rules. Feel free to clarify how this works.

 

[Andesite]

It's called forum shopping. Doing some internet searches will tell you about it and give you a history of its use and precedent. It doesn't perfectly fit in this scenario however as they wrote it into the bill.

Basically in forum shopping, you choose the venue you think you will have the best chance of winning in. The precedent typically favors the plaintiff as they are the (legal) party bringing up the challenge. In most of the cases I read, the use of forum shopping was typically done with options of state vs federal courts of issues with out of state plaintiffs or out of state venues.

On an editorial note, I think this issue smacks of checks and balances and our three branches of government. It is the legislature exerting power into our judicial branch.

So, like what GOA did by bringing their challenge to a Harney County court? Both sides do it.

 

[Koda]

So, like what GOA did by bringing their challenge to a Harney County court? Both sides do it.

I cant say thats even close to the same thing as trying to pass a law that prohibits challenging said law outside of a court that supports said law.

 

[saxon]

that is all

 

[MatthewDB]

So file the lawsuit challenging the law in federal court in the federal district.

We did that once already and it hasn't resulted in anything yet.

I'm still wondering how the case got moved from Pendleton to Portland.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Correct. We see this playing out in Texas as zealots hope to have a conservative judge ban a FDA approved drug nationwide that's been safely used by women for decades. The epitome of 'forum shopping'.

It's why they always look for an aggrieved party in those counties.

Forcing any individual complaint to come to Salem is an automatic loser in this legislation.

 

[PiratePast40]

We did that once already and it hasn't resulted in anything yet.

I'm still wondering how the case got moved from Pendleton to Portland.

In Harney County circuit court, Judge Raschio issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on implementation of Measure 114. That TRO is why we can currently purchase firearms in Oregon. The trial in that lawsuit is scheduled for September 18th to 22nd so the TRO stands until after the trial.

The trial in Federal Court, is scheduled for June 5th thru 9th.

I don't know the process works, but the federal trial was moved at the request of the state.

 

[156256Hunter]

that is all

View attachment 1397865

Wasn't that in 2020, the summer of love? "Mostly peaceful" protestors with molotov cocktails and fireworks setting fire to things?

 

[monkeybutler]

They are just trying to prevent a proliferation of idiotic suits by people who clearly can't read good.

 

[Member 34319]

Print ballots for every citizen regardless of being registered or not and then claim that 114 was voted for by the people. Get called out for it by a judge with enough balls to stand against them. Judge gets written out of the new laws because the reps feel that the people who voted for this deserve to have what they voted for passed! Write bills so ridiculous that it would take years to counter in court. Have emergency clause so it goes through immediately.

Progress never looked so good.

 

[uberguy]

Ive always understood we are a Federal Republic. Im not pretending to be a government scholar or historian but it sounds to me that if a super majority changes the constitution that the people voted their representatives in, then thats when majority rules. Feel free to clarify how this works.

I'm not pretending either, but you did say we live in a democratic republic. If that were strictly true, a simple majority can do whatever they want. We don't.

 

[Koda]

I'm not pretending either, but you did say we live in a democratic republic. If that were strictly true, a simple majority can do whatever they want. We don't.

It's not an easy subject for me to grasp but I think were getting things mixed up. I said we were a "Representative Democracy" which describes how our Federation works politically. Majority doesn't truly rule here, but only in a sense that minority's have representatives intervene, I think. It feels like majority rules in Oregon specifically regarding gun rights when our representatives are so unbalanced we don't have enough on our side to affect a vote.
While -currently- a minority opinon like a judge in a conservative county can put a law on hold to test its constitutionality, it seems like if we pass a law that prohibits that then weve stepped over the tyranny boundary of majority rule.