US Politics

Most US laws regarding convicted felons voting rights persist even after they've served their sentences.

And if you consider the fact that black men are disproportionately more likely to be jailed, that's where the suppression angle comes into play.

Yes, I completely get that, but as I said I'm just not sure it's that simplistic. I'm 100% sure that it's an immensely pleasing bonus to many, but I'm not entirely sure it was designed purely to stop black votes. How long has it been law? And the same question for other countries too?
 
US felons aren't allowed to vote even after serving their time.

Is that for any crime?

I'm not sure what the UK's laws are once released tbh.

Anyway, I didn't want to derail the thread or argue as you may well be right. As I said in my previous reply, I'm not sure it was the initial thought and motive when the law was first passed, although I admit I could be wrong.
 
Yes, I completely get that, but as I said I'm just not sure it's that simplistic. I'm 100% sure that it's an immensely pleasing bonus to many, but I'm not entirely sure it was designed purely to stop black votes. How long has it been law? And the same question for other countries too?
It's in the article. Jim Crow era.

I can't speak for other countries at large, but being excluded from voting after serving your sentence isnt the case here in Australia, nor, for what it's worth, in Vietnam (yeap, the commie pinkos).
 
Is that for any crime?

I'm not sure what the UK's laws are once released tbh.

Anyway, I didn't want to derail the thread or argue as you may well be right. As I said in my previous reply, I'm not sure it was the initial thought and motive when the law was first passed, although I admit I could be wrong.
I'm not sure what passes as felony offences in America. In UK convicted criminals can vote once they get out.
To be honest, I'm not too sure why it's like that in America. It was discussed in a Netflix documentary I watched not long ago.
 
So, the Intercept seems to have pulled off something big on Kavanaugh. They got a leak that Feinstein had a confidential letter which she wasn't planning to reveal - and they forced her hand:
DIANNE FEINSTEIN WITHHOLDING BRETT KAVANAUGH DOCUMENT FROM FELLOW JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS


Next day:
Democrats send 'information' concerning Kavanaugh nomination to FBI
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html
FBI have already decided not to investigate and sent it to the WH.
 
Apparently some sort of misconduct when Kavannaugh was in high school. Seriously doubt Wray will bite.
 
So, the Intercept seems to have pulled off something big on Kavanaugh. They got a leak that Feinstein had a confidential letter which she wasn't planning to reveal - and they forced her hand:
DIANNE FEINSTEIN WITHHOLDING BRETT KAVANAUGH DOCUMENT FROM FELLOW JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS


Next day:
Democrats send 'information' concerning Kavanaugh nomination to FBI
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html

Is the underlying implication that Feinstein is not fighting hard enough against Kavanaugh?
 
Editor’s note: On September 9, Think Progress published an article by Ian Millhiser that made text out of the subtext of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, describing how the Supreme Court nominee, in a fairly straightforward legal analysis, had revealed his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That legal analysis, the article noted, matched comments Kavanaugh had made in a speech in 2017. “Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation hearing, eliminates any doubt that he opposes Roe,” Millhiser wrote. Facebook, meanwhile, had empowered the right-wing outlet the Weekly Standard to “fact check” articles. The Weekly Standard, invested in Kavanaugh’s confirmation, deemed the Think Progress article “false.” The story was effectively nuked from Facebook, with other outlets threatened with traffic and monetary consequences if they shared it. The story is republished below, with permission from Think Progress, though not from Facebook or the Weekly Standard.
Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week and almost no one noticed
Collins, who is nominally pro-choice, said shortly before Kavanaugh’s nomination that a Supreme Court nominee “who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me.” But she’s spent much of the time since his nomination looking for excuses to claim that Kavanaugh’s views on Roe are uncertain.

Well, they aren’t. Even before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court nominee, his record indicated fairly clearly that he opposes Roe. And he cleared up any remaining doubt on the second day of his confirmation hearing — despite the fact that almost no one noticed.

Even before his hearing, Kavanaugh’s views on abortion weren’t exactly a state secret. He gave a speech to a conservative think tank in 2017 praising Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade, and he wrote an opinion arguing that the Trump administration could temporarily imprison undocumented women who were seeking an abortion.
 
The Dems are really in a no-win situation with regards to Kavanaugh. Even if for any reason, he doesn't get nominated, the next guy will be further to the right and so on. You can't stall a nomination for two years.
 
The Dems are really in a no-win situation with regards to Kavanaugh. Even if for any reason, he doesn't get nominated, the next guy will be further to the right and so on. You can't stall a nomination for two years.

Yes, the senate is the problem and it's not going away.
 
The Dems are really in a no-win situation with regards to Kavanaugh. Even if for any reason, he doesn't get nominated, the next guy will be further to the right and so on. You can't stall a nomination for two years.
The one and only hope is that somehow they take the senate and then play the 'lame duck president' card for 2 years. For that reason it is important to stall the process until the election. Of course, chances are very low that they are going to take the senate, but then chances were as low that Trump would become president so it is important to fight about it.
 
2lauhvU.jpg
 
Ah, didn't know it.

Does it need a supermajority or can a nuclear option be used to do it? If the second, wouldn't be surprised if Republicans do it.
 
Why would they? The've owned for a long time and are set to own it for another generation.
If no one else dies/retires, they will have just 5 by the end of president Trump term, with one of them old. A Democrat pres and suddenly they won't have the majority anymore. Also, chief justice is not a nutcase despite being a Conservative.
 
If no one else dies/retires, they will have just 5 by the end of president Trump term, with one of them old. A Democrat pres and suddenly they won't have the majority anymore. Also, chief justice is not a nutcase despite being a Conservative.
The senate disproportionately returns republicans thanks to them living in empty states where both residents know each other, they'll get the chance to reject enough dem nominees as they've recently shown.
 
The senate disproportionately returns republicans thanks to them living in empty states where both residents know each other, they'll get the chance to reject enough dem nominees as they've recently shown.
Dems will have the senate and the pres in 2020 though. But yes, senate favoring small states helps Republicans a lot.
 
If no one else dies/retires, they will have just 5 by the end of president Trump term, with one of them old. A Democrat pres and suddenly they won't have the majority anymore. Also, chief justice is not a nutcase despite being a Conservative.

Yes, he’s just an uber conservatives who have consistently ruled in favour of conservatives, gutting workers right, campaign finance transparency, environmental protection etc... We are indeed lucky Roberts isn’t Alex Jones.
 
Yes, he’s just an uber conservatives who have consistently ruled in favour of conservatives, gutting workers right, campaign finance transparency, environmental protection etc... We are indeed lucky Roberts isn’t Alex Jones.
He ain't that bad. Of course, I don't agree with most of his views, but you, Eboue and co. need to understand that half of American people seem to mostly agree with them, which is why Republicans have the presidency, senate, house and most of governatorial positions. There is not a right vs wrong in these things, and different people see things differently.

That is different with the Tea Party and the new Republicans who have gone into batshit level of craziness, and they aren't even Republican or conservatives, but instead are masqueraded Nazis.

Also, for all the making lives worse for other people, didn't he save Obamacare being the only one conservative who voted for it?
 


2018 folks.

They actually had one of those in the middle school I went to in northwest Florida. I thought it was insane that that was even a thing. However, very little, if any, students had that waiver signed off. Even my dad, who was a fairly strict military dad with a temper, didn't sign on for it.
 


2018 folks.


I used to get paddled by my principal in Alabama. That sort of thing used to be a bit of a sport among teachers and principals in the south. My principal had a fairly broad variety of paddles made out of all sorts of different trees. Good times.