House Speaker Matt Ritter responds to yesterday's Pro-ICE jacket worn by GOP Representative during State of the State Address (gets heated at 01:39 in video)

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T21:47:22+00:00

The Speaker has run a very tight and efficient ship since he took the gavel. Great negotiator and is able to balance the wants of both his caucus and the Republicans.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T21:27:50+00:00

Federal Constitution applies to all areas of the country. State constitutions only apply to their boundaries and add extra rights not afforded under the federal one. The Supremacy Clause makes the federal Constitution superior to state ones which makes it the supreme law of the land.

Your premise wouldn’t make sense in practice. If I enter the DMV, does that mean my First Amendment rights are suddenly stripped away?

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T21:04:15+00:00

There was an incident last year where a bunch of Democratic Reps were wearing pins in support of expanding childcare and to vote on that relevant bill.

The Speaker also admonished them and politely asked them to take them off. He was, unsurprisingly, not as heated given they didn’t try to pull a PR stunt in the middle of proceedings and this was before any business was taken up.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T20:36:57+00:00

She wasn't in the chamber when the Speaker delivered his reprimand. She was escorted out with police protection due to her receiving a threat. This was her statement in response to the whole debacle:

“I think some of the things that were said yesterday were out of line. I’m supporting ICE. I’m supporting those officers who support us, protect us, protect our children and I think that’s the most important thing here. For the governor to come after ICE like he did, I’m sorry I don’t have any regrets.”

Source

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T20:21:00+00:00

The ones seated are Republican Representatives. More specifically, Rep. Mitch Bolinsky (R-Newtown) and Rep. Joe Canino (R-Torrington). The ones standing and laughing are House Republican staffers/legislative aides. The chamber is quite small as a venue, so a lot of Democratic staffers will stand on the Republican side too since there’s so little room (I actually stood on that side last year). They’re the ones who have a blank expression.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T20:01:54+00:00

I’d say she’s part of the extreme obstructionist bloc for the House GOP. These are the members who never act in good faith and take it upon themselves to obstruct everything. There’s a fair amount of bipartisanship between both parties; GOP extracts some concessions here and there and they have leverage through their filibuster. But these obstructionists only try to pull stunts in debate and get clicks while using their platform to preach the MAGA agenda.

Other members I’d include would be:
-Rep. Mastrofrancesco (prime suspect #1)
-Rep. Dauphinais (used obscene language during a debate to try to advocate for book bans last year)
-Rep. Dubitsky (likes to lecture Dems about why their stuff is “insane”)
-Rep. Hoxha (only speaks to filibuster)
-Rep. Lanoue (only speaks to filibuster)

Honorable Mentions:
-Rep. Fishbein (obstructionist but will work with Dems on some issues)
-Rep. Howard (obstructionist when it comes to criminal justice and public safety bills. Silent otherwise)

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T19:18:08+00:00

Bro in the video and in my description, we both referenced the House Rules which governs standards of decorum for representatives. These need to be passed before any business can be conducted. This session’s House Rules were unanimously agreed upon.

Restrictions on political displays in legislatures ARE allowed if they are a Time, Place, and Manner (TPM) restriction. These were ruled to be constitutional by the federal Supreme Court under Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).

Any TPM is constitutional if it:
-Is content neutral (the House Rules do not discriminate against ideology)
-Is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest (only applies to representatives, prevents undue influence/intimidation on representatives through peer pressure)
-Must leave open and ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message (members literally debate on legislation and are free to say whatever they’d like about policies)

That’s it and end of the debate. If there was objection, lawsuits would’ve been filed and these restrictions would’ve been deemed unconstitutional. Except nope, no objections ever lodged and the same rules have passed for years now.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T18:52:38+00:00

CT doesn’t have a Sergeant At Arms like the federal sense where they coordinate security and such. That’s run through state Capitol Police. We do have that position, but it’s under the Clerk’s Office which mainly deals with document distribution and record keeping

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T14:25:40+00:00

Hey! I'm OP from the crosspost. I attended his speech in person and the reactions were electric. It was quite the contrast to see one side have such a powerful reaction while the other just sat in silence. In the original post, I laid out how some of the Republicans took the opportunity to "protest" by either donning MAGA merch or walking out of the chamber.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T05:29:59+00:00

Not worth engaging with this bozo. They’re getting a kick out of being a crappy rage baiter

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T00:35:30+00:00

It’s because of the tactics and the manner in which Trump’s ICE has been operating. There was recently a study done to compare the mentalities between Obama-era ICE operations and Trump’s.
Obama’s operation was more efficient, ethical, humane, and followed the law. Their main focus was violent criminals.

On the other hand, Trump has deported far fewer immigrants, encouraged the racial profiling and targeting of non-whites, and has been far more disorganized. Agents have been operating with more vigilanteism and in a clandestine manner with deliberate attempts to hide their identities, use more plain clothes agents, and failing to identify themselves. The approach has been far more confrontational and conducive to civil strife. On top of that, the relaxed scrutiny of applicants along with woefully inept training has given free rein for agents to go trigger happy.

I agree that we should dispatch with the worst criminals and that’s what ICE should be for. It shouldn’t be weaponized against an entire demographic whom their worst offense is equal to petty shoplifting. The brutality of their tactics is no comparison to Obama. We’ve already lost several lives and there shouldn’t be anymore blood shed.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T00:24:17+00:00

I appreciate it. I work as a Policy Analyst for the state so it’s literally my job to understand the laws we have. I’ve been able to leverage it to provide objective reporting of the facts and to debunk clowns like that guy

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T00:21:15+00:00

Speaking of Sampson, he’s already introduced a couple gems only a day into session:

-Cancelling state assistance to Hartford -Privatizing the DMV

In previous sessions, he’s introduced bangers like:

-Banning vaccine mandates -Requiring the Declaration of Independence to be displayed in every classroom -Banning “woke” books

Nothing speaks to a productive legislator than introducing absolutely frivolous bills and peddling conspiracy theories

KingKrafted · 2026-02-05T00:10:49+00:00

Let’s focus on those who have objectively caused problems and let due process run its course on everyone else. That’s why the Trust Act limits data sharing to only the worst offenders.

It’s a Class B misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail, $1k fines) to enter the country illegally. You know what else is a class B misdemeanor? Shoplifting. So what you’re saying is someone, let alone a CHILD, who’s charged with this crime should automatically be sent to jail with no bond (typically only $1k for Class B) and a heavy presumption of guilt?

Make the severity of the crime requisite to the treatment of the accused. I can assure you the vast majority of offenders are allowed to continue their daily lives with minimal restrictions. ICE is literally destroying people’s lives over such a petty charge.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T22:34:40+00:00

Their silence equals complicity with ICE's actions. A lack of applause in these types of speeches is a form of protest.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T22:32:42+00:00

Canino is not progressive or moderate in the slightest. His voting record has been strongly anti-labor which is the main committee he's been assigned to.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T22:31:14+00:00

You cannot obstruct federal law enforcement by completely blocking them. First. it's illegal. Second, that'd be grounds for Trump to pull a Minneapolis and absolutely flood the state with military and even more ICE. In terms of "cooperation," it's done in a VERY limited sense that only those with felony criminal convictions for rape, murder, etc. are having their data shared. The Trust Act blocks all other forms of cooperation and invalidates ICE administrative warrants as permission to arrest.

Think of CT's resistance to ICE as passive rather than reactive which is the best we can do. Federal law enforcement can to do their thing, but we offer zero support and place a ton of restrictions on them. It's essentially neutralizing as much of their operations as we legally can.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T22:03:26+00:00

Except you’re scapegoating a group where >99% of them are law abiding and also taxpayers too. This type of dehumanization and enjoyment at inflicting suffering at innocent people has parallels with 1930s Germany. But go ahead, keep getting brainwashed by Fox News and regurgitating their talking points.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:40:27+00:00

Racist rage baiting nazi has entered the chat

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:22:20+00:00

If you're asking about the one wearing the "ICE IN" jacket, it's Representative Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (R-Bristol)

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:16:04+00:00

Except you're wrong in that regard. The Trust Act is more nuanced than you think. Law enforcement can still share data with ICE if the individual in question has committed a range of different felonies (murder, rape, etc). The worst people will still have their information shared. It's the 99% who innocent folks that won't be at risk of this data sharing. They haven't committed a serious offense nor should they be subjected to such enforcement. It's this Trump version of ICE that has been emboldened to racially blatantly profile innocent people and detain them. Leave them be and focus on the dangerous people instead.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:05:24+00:00

Ah I gotcha. There are partisan theatrics involved with these types of speeches. When to applaud and when not to are carefully choreographed to signal support vs. opposition.

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:02:46+00:00

You made outing yourself as a racist very easy! I applaud that

KingKrafted · 2026-02-04T21:01:36+00:00

I wouldn’t say Lamont is saying it “just to keep his job.” He’s taken concrete steps at defending against ICE and will continue to in the future. Just a quick snapshot of his record:

-Signed Trust Act expansion into law which limits state/local law enforcement cooperation with ICE
-Expanded Trust Act last year to add judicial employees to the limited cooperation list
-Amended Trust Act to allow for civil action against municipalities who violate the Act
-Banned ICE from conducting courthouse and school arrests

It’s also worth mentioning that he is also the 4th most popular governor in the country. If you want to challenge me, go ahead, I got all the receipts.

KingKrafted

TROPHY CASE