US Politics



AOC is great. If only she could make a video about the need to use MDMA, Psilocybin, and Weed for therapeutic purposes.
 
MrMarcello said:
Gorka, there's gotta be a cartoon or cinematic character to compare him to.

Found a blog dissecting his dissertation. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/sebastian-gorkas-dissertation-part-i

An old Vice article. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/599emb/why-sebastian-gorka-hasnt-really-gone-away

This image from 2-3 years ago made me wonder what lifelong intel and specops military brass, many having advanced educational studies through various academic, joint, and special programs, sat through this guy's bullshit and just wondered what the living feck was going on in this administration from the onset.
1504264647693-gorka.jpeg
Click to expand...

Not just does he have a Bond villain demeanour, he apparently lives in a Bond villain castle.
 
Raoul said:
He comes across more as an Austin Powers villain to me - basically a farcical parody of a proper old school villain.
Click to expand...

I expect that map to split open any minute now, revealing a shark pool underneath.
 
How on God’s green earth did Clarence Thomas just write an opinion on race and jury trials that was well to the right (or was it?) of Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and even Neil Gorsuch?
In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of Curtis Flowers for murder; he had been on death row in Mississippi for 22 years. The Court held, in Flowers v. Mississippi, that the trial court had wrongly concluded that the prosecution’s decision to strike a potential juror, who is black, was not motivated by racial discrimination. Flowers, who is also black, has been tried six times for the same murder by the same prosecutor. There is a long record of the prosecutor striking potential jurors who are black.

What’s interesting about the Court’s opinion is the line-up. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority decision; he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, as well as the Court’s four liberal justices. The only two dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“The numbers speak loudly,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Over the course of the first four trials, there were 36 black prospective jurors against whom the State could have exercised a peremptory strike. The State tried to strike all 36.” That stark background reality clearly influenced the majority opinion, as Alito took pains to emphasize in his concurrence. How could Thomas pretend otherwise?
...
Simply put, Thomas does not believe that the Constitution should prohibit the state or the defense from striking down potential jurors on the basis of race. What’s even wilder is his reasoning for that claim. Thomas believes that the role of racism in jury trials (as well as society as a whole) is so intense—”racial prejudice exists,” Thomas writes in his dissent, “and can affect the fairness of trials”—that the only protection, or at least the main protection, a black person will have against that racism is his or her ability to strike down potential jurors who are white. Because “race matters in the courtroom,” he concludes, Thomas would “return to litigants one of the most important tools to combat prejudice in their cases.”

That “return to litigants one of the most important tools” is a reference to racially based peremptory strikes, which were declared unconstitutional by the Court in the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky. Peremptory strikes are decisions by the defense or the prosecution to strike a potential juror without having to give a reason. In Batson, the Court held that the prosecution could not use such strikes to strike jurors on the basis of race. Later, it extended that rule to the defense. Neither side can strike potential jurors on the basis of race.

...
His big take-home point?

The more fundamental problem is Batson itself….I would return to our pre-Batsonunderstanding—that race matters in the courtroom—and thereby return to litigants one of the most important tools to combat prejudice in their cases.
Click to expand...

This is the heart of the opinion, as I say. And again, it’s telling that this is exactly the part of the opinion that Gorsuch refuses to join. Precisely because it’s where Thomas most distinguishes himself from other conservatives on the Court: by insisting that racism is such a pernicious and pervasive force in the courtroom that the best weapon against it is to empower black defendants to use their peremptory strikes in order to create juries that look more like them.

How this conclusion can be squared with the first 33 pages of the opinion—where Thomas repeatedly denies that racism played a role in the prosecutor’s decision to strike various jurors—or in his many other opinions where he seems not to be particularly bothered by the role of race in policing and prisons, is a complicated issue.
Click to expand...

http://coreyrobin.com/2019/06/21/ho...hn-roberts-samuel-alito-and-even-neil-gorsuc/
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...


To me this shows how disconnected voters(Republicans more so)are to the values they think they have and the actual outcome of their vote.

Republicans may well believe in "properly controlled immigration" (Whatever that means)but the outcome of their vote(The thing that matters)is children dying in cages. Actions speaks louder than words.
 
Red Defence said:
Click to expand...


It's the GOP taking the piss out of local Democrats for shutting down the Oregon senate building due to actual threats from 'local patriot groups'. The Republicans are purposely obfuscating between those threats and the legitimate protests of the people in the photograph. This is while they themselves (the GOP senators) are literally in hiding from state troopers sent by the Democrats to find them. They are on the run because the Democrats want to pass climate change legislation that the Republicans disagree with. Although the Democrats hold the majority there have to be at least 20 Senators on the floor for official business to be conducted and Dems are unfortunately 2 shy of that amount. By not turning up to work the Republicans prevent any and all legislation from being passed.

It's quite the story.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's the GOP taking the piss out of local Democrats for shutting down the Oregon senate building due to actual threats from 'local patriot groups'. The Republicans are purposely obfuscating between those threats and the legitimate protests of the people in the photograph. This is while they themselves (the GOP senators) are literally in hiding from state troopers sent by the Democrats to find them. They are on the run because the Democrats want to pass climate change legislation that the Republicans disagree with. Although the Democrats hold the majority there have to be at least 20 Senators on the floor for official business to be conducted and Dems are unfortunately 2 shy of that amount. By not turning up to work the Republicans prevent any and all legislation from being passed.

It's quite the story.
Click to expand...
Was just reading about this. They've levelled up on obstructionism, impressive.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's the GOP taking the piss out of local Democrats for shutting down the Oregon senate building due to actual threats from 'local patriot groups'. The Republicans are purposely obfuscating between those threats and the legitimate protests of the people in the photograph. This is while they themselves (the GOP senators) are literally in hiding from state troopers sent by the Democrats to find them. They are on the run because the Democrats want to pass climate change legislation that the Republicans disagree with. Although the Democrats hold the majority there have to be at least 20 Senators on the floor for official business to be conducted and Dems are unfortunately 2 shy of that amount. By not turning up to work the Republicans prevent any and all legislation from being passed.

It's quite the story.
Click to expand...

Yes I originally posted it because I was amazed they were openly supporting the armed threats. This is a little better, but not by that much!
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's the GOP taking the piss out of local Democrats for shutting down the Oregon senate building due to actual threats from 'local patriot groups'. The Republicans are purposely obfuscating between those threats and the legitimate protests of the people in the photograph. This is while they themselves (the GOP senators) are literally in hiding from state troopers sent by the Democrats to find them. They are on the run because the Democrats want to pass climate change legislation that the Republicans disagree with. Although the Democrats hold the majority there have to be at least 20 Senators on the floor for official business to be conducted and Dems are unfortunately 2 shy of that amount. By not turning up to work the Republicans prevent any and all legislation from being passed.

It's quite the story.
Click to expand...

Read in the comments a GOP member threatened police if they came to find him, or something.
 
Supreme Court slaps down Trump’s citizenship Census question in surprise ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the
Dept. of Commerce v. New York, where the state of New York sued over the question the Trump administration placed on the census asking about legal citizenship.

The Court decided that they agreed with lower court decisions and that the reason for putting the question on the census was “invalid.”

It was a 5-4 ruling but it was Chief Justice John Roberts who joined with the liberal justices.

The Trump administration claimed they needed the question to comply with federal voting rights laws, but New York called it purely partisan because it will prompt fewer Latinos to fill out the census. With fewer people filling out the census, legislative seats are more likely to garner Republican Congressional districts through gerrymandering.
Click to expand...


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/su...s-question-in-surprise-ruling/#comments-label
 
Drifter said:
Supreme Court slaps down Trump’s citizenship Census question in surprise ruling




https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/su...s-question-in-surprise-ruling/#comments-label
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but the 5-4 decision seems to allow for a re-run if the GOP can figure out a more believable pretext. The far more damaging, important and far reaching SCOTUS decision today was that the federal courts should no longer be considered as defenders of intrastate democracy. Gerrymandering green light.
 

Supreme Court OKs Excessive Partisan Gerrymandering
The ruling opens the door for lawmakers to draw districts that greatly benefit their party.

"Gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year and in 2020 will now determine which party controls redistricting for the following decade. Republicans currently have the power to draw far more congressional districts than Democrats do (179 to 76); if that continues after the 2020 elections, the Supreme Court’s decision will effectively entrench GOP rule."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supr...ing-constitutional_n_5cf1907ee4b0e8085e3a0fe1


Very troubling ruling. Makes it more difficult for non-establishment as it entrenches power in the incumbents.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Supreme Court OKs Excessive Partisan Gerrymandering
The ruling opens the door for lawmakers to draw districts that greatly benefit their party.

"Gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year and in 2020 will now determine which party controls redistricting for the following decade. Republicans currently have the power to draw far more congressional districts than Democrats do (179 to 76); if that continues after the 2020 elections, the Supreme Court’s decision will effectively entrench GOP rule."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supr...ing-constitutional_n_5cf1907ee4b0e8085e3a0fe1


Very troubling ruling. Makes it more difficult for non-establishment as it entrenches power in the incumbents.
Click to expand...

The only solution is to pack the SC when Bernie wins.
 
Red Dreams said:
The only solution is to pack the SC when Bernie wins.
Click to expand...

He'd need to win a huge mandate for that. It worked for FDR because he won overwhelming victory and the SC was deliberately knocking down his various attempts. Things would have to go almost perfect for Dems in 2020 for that to be viable right now IMO.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
He'd need to win a huge mandate for that. It worked for FDR because he won overwhelming victory and the SC was deliberately knocking down his various attempts. Things would have to go almost perfect for Dems in 2020 for that to be viable right now IMO.
Click to expand...

Bernie will simply point out how the SC is owned by Corporations...a virtual rubber stamp for the Republicans.

Nobody believed a Blue wave last year.

What will happen next year will make that look small.

People want real change. Not what that charlatan Biden is offering.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Supreme Court OKs Excessive Partisan Gerrymandering
The ruling opens the door for lawmakers to draw districts that greatly benefit their party.

"Gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year and in 2020 will now determine which party controls redistricting for the following decade. Republicans currently have the power to draw far more congressional districts than Democrats do (179 to 76); if that continues after the 2020 elections, the Supreme Court’s decision will effectively entrench GOP rule."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supr...ing-constitutional_n_5cf1907ee4b0e8085e3a0fe1


Very troubling ruling. Makes it more difficult for non-establishment as it entrenches power in the incumbents.
Click to expand...

As far as I can make out the court is saying that there is no constitutional federal defence against the subversion of state democracy.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
As far as I can make out the court is saying that there is no constitutional federal defence against the subversion of state democracy.
Click to expand...

Roberts gave the excuse that if the SC court interfered it would be seen as taking sides between the political parties.

This was some months back.

Errr how about ruling on what is just arsehole?
 
Red Dreams said:
Roberts gave the excuse that if the SC court interfered it would be seen as taking sides between the political parties.

This was some months back.

Errr how about ruling on what is just arsehole?
Click to expand...

Given which party gains the most from gerrymandering it's perfectly evident that in reaching its conclusion the court has already picked a side. Its reasoning is far more insidious than 'can't be seen to be partisan' though. Roberts said the following:

“Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary....with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”
Click to expand...

So the real argument is that, while the court recognises as fact that gerrymandering is anti-democratic and unjust, the constitution fails to provide federal recourse. Ergo it isn't properly within the remit of the SCOTUS to make rulings on such matters. Instead the only lawful option was to donate their testicles to the gerrymandered states themselves.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
Supreme Court OKs Excessive Partisan Gerrymandering
The ruling opens the door for lawmakers to draw districts that greatly benefit their party.

"Gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year and in 2020 will now determine which party controls redistricting for the following decade. Republicans currently have the power to draw far more congressional districts than Democrats do (179 to 76); if that continues after the 2020 elections, the Supreme Court’s decision will effectively entrench GOP rule."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supr...ing-constitutional_n_5cf1907ee4b0e8085e3a0fe1


Very troubling ruling. Makes it more difficult for non-establishment as it entrenches power in the incumbents.
Click to expand...
i know this is a low blow but im going to do it anyway. @crappycraperson :lol:
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Given which party gains the most from gerrymandering it's perfectly evident that in reaching its conclusion the court has already picked a side. Its reasoning is far more incidious than 'can't be seen to be partisan' though. Roberts said the following:



So the real argument is that, while the court recognises as fact that gerrymandering is anti-democratic and unjust, the constitution fails to provide federal recourse. Ergo it isn't properly within the remit of the SCOTUS to make rulings on such matters. Instead the only lawful option was to donate their testicles to the gerrymandered states themselves.
Click to expand...

from a different era
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
 
You must log in or register to reply here.