DFL mismanagement running amok
The lowlight of last night's session happened when the DFL passed a 2,860-page omnibus bill at the last minute that contained these bills in the omnibus bill:
- HF 5242 (Transportation, Housing, Labor)
- HF 4247 (Scope of Practice)
- HF 4024 (Higher Education)
- HF 2609 (Straw purchase/binary trigger ban)
- SF 4942 (Agriculture/Energy)
- SF 5335 (DHS)
- SF 4699 (HHS)
- Paid family leave, HF 5363, 4th engrossment
- Tax Bill
UPDATE: The DFL apparently thinks that We The People shouldn't have a voice in our bills. Check this out:
This is disgusting:The MN Supreme Court has ruled that a bill does not violate the "single subject" requirement under the Minnesota Constitution as long as the provision is listed in the title of the bill.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) May 20, 2024
Here's the "title" of the 1431 page tax omnibus bill. (Yes, it's 2 pages) #mnleg pic.twitter.com/76y8SqCGgu
The MN Supreme Court has ruled that a bill does not violate the "single subject" requirement under the Minnesota Constitution as long as the provision is listed in the title of the bill. Here's the "title" of the 1431 page tax omnibus bill. (Yes, it's 2 pages)Remember these Supreme Court justices the next time you vote. Each of them is appointed by a DFL governor. Each can be removed by the people. When justices become political operatives, that's what tyranny looks like.
A bill that includes the omnibus bills for HHS, DHS, the Tax Bill, Agriculture/Energy, Paid Family Medical Leave Act, Gun control and Higher Ed isn't a single subject bill.
It's just the DFL operatives in black robes cleaning up the messes left by Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy and Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman. These aren't justices. They're political hacks in black robes. The good news is that the ERA didn't get passed Sunday night. Walter Hudson summarized things perfectly in this video:
This Alpha News article highlights the shenanigans that the DFL tried playing Sunday night:If approved by voters, the following text would have been placed in the Constitution of the State of Minnesota:This is the "text of the question voters would have been asked to vote on in 2026:"All persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state. The state shall not discriminate against any person in intent or effect on account of one or more of the following: (a) race; (b) color; (c) national origin; (d) ancestry; (e) disability; or (f) sex, including but not limited to: (i) making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant; (ii) gender identity or gender expression; or (iii) sexual orientation."
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of this state, and shall not be discriminated against on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, gender, and sexual orientation?"That's a quite different question than what the text would say that's inserted into Minnesota's Constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment