Jump to content

So much for States' Rights


Recommended Posts

Jeff will be along shortly to say that he's never even heard of states rights. He'll tell you he's heard of Stahts Rights but that's differnt. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Tom will say that corporate personhood rights should be Federalized unless they should Confederalized but that the Duopoly is preventing either or both of those. And that, children, is why we can't have nice things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

This article could spur a thread about many things, but more poignantly, I thinks this falls under the GOP's "we're for states' rights until states start doing things we don't like" mantra.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-moving-to-block-california-vehicle-emissions-rules/ar-AAGR5ha?ocid=spartanntp

 

Quote

Two U.S. agencies are preparing to submit for final White House regulatory review a plan to revoke California's authority to set its own vehicle greenhouse gas standards and declare that states are preempted from setting their own vehicle rules, two people briefed on the matter said Thursday.

That's pretty old news. As noted GOP stalwart Justice Stevens said back in 2005,

 

Quote

 

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

    California is one of at least nine States that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.1 The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

 

The commerce power knows no bounds so the fedgov can preempt such state rules.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff will be along shortly to say that he's never even heard of states rights. He'll tell you he's heard of Stahts Rights but that's differnt. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Tom will say that corporate personhood rights should be Federalized unless they should Confederalized but that the Duopoly is preventing either or both of those. And that, children, is why we can't have nice things.

Naw - CA can do whatever it likes.  If compliance makes them money, manufacturers will comply.  'Til the point that the crowded like sardines everywhere east of the ridge folks in CA start impacting things in my life?  They can do whatever makes 'em happy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas did whatever Noted Progressive Justice Scalia did. 

Noted Progressive Justice Kavanaugh could not be reached for comment as he is out looking for Squee. 

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas said he'd sit on his hands until Noted Progressive Justice Kavanaugh returned unless Noted Progressive Justice Gorsuch tells him otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Naw - CA can do whatever it likes.  If compliance makes them money, manufacturers will comply.  'Til the point that the crowded like sardines everywhere east of the ridge folks in CA start impacting things in my life?  They can do whatever makes 'em happy. 

Cleaner air is such a bitch, ain’t it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And keeping the Damn Yankees from ever thinking that they should stay south of the Mason Dixon line. 

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

With emissions, who is telling them they can't be tougher than what national standards require?  I don't see that one working.  Well, with the Trump Administration all agencies are on opposite day, so the EPA might be wanting to crack down on them now.  So you might be right there. 

Immigration?  When the Chamber of Commerce wants immigration stopped we'll stop it. The Trump Immigration Crisis started out for show, and now it is a humanitarian crisis.  Before he started screwing with it, our illegal immigration rate was the lowest it had been in a decade. But local communities refusing the feds' demand that they use their resources for federal immigration issues is not a big stites rats issue either, other than states looking to recoup money for unfunded mandates. Like so many of Trumps projects both before and after he took office, someone else gets left to pick up the tab. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Cleaner air is such a bitch, ain’t it?

This doesn’t effect the pollution requirements Ca has that are stricter than the rest of the country.  

But you already knew that, with your cleaner air comment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

 

That's pretty old news. As noted GOP stalwart Justice Stevens said back in 2005,

 

The commerce power knows no bounds so the fedgov can preempt such state rules.

Noted Progressive Justice Thomas disagreed, by the way.

Really? so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

States rights, Tommy. Besides, The federal government cannot take away a state-mandated law when it exceeds the federal standard. The Clean Air Act allowed California to set its own standards because they were doing it before the Clean Air Act was passed. The EPA can't touch this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

CA uses it to their advantage w/the vehicle emissions and mileage requirements.  Other states seem to be using it to their advantage in the establishment of immigration sanctuary.   Not disputing your points, but, IMHO, those are a couple examples that seem to answer your question. 

CA uses what to their advantage? Why is it wrong to say “get those smoky fucking things off the road?”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Trump is going to go after the manufactures in an antitrust probe, because the manufacturers agreed to make cleaner and more efficient cars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/justice-dept-launches-antitrust-probe-of-automakers-over-their-fuel-efficiency-deal-with-california/2019/09/06/29a22ee6-d0c7-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html

The Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation of four leading automakers over an agreement they forged with the state of California to maintain higher fuel efficiency standards than those sought by the Trump administration, escalating the stakes in the long-running battle between the White House and California.

The Justice Department declined to comment Friday, but two other federal agencies said the state’s deal with Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America on gas mileage targets may be in violation of the law and warned of legal consequences.

California officials, who have repeatedly asserted the state’s rights under the 1970 Clean Air Act, criticized the inquiry as politicization to impose the Republican president’s policies.

“The U.S. Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants,” Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in a statement. “Consumers might ask, who is [EPA Administrator] Andy Wheeler protecting

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, you folks are waaaaay behind the curve . . 

Read yourselves up on "preemption" 

Its what the "local control" Reich does when communities 

actually try to exercise local control . .  

https://www.epi.org/blog/missouris-new-preemption-law-cheats-38000-workers-out-of-a-raise/

Query - Why aren't people rioting in the streets ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

With emissions, who is telling them they can't be tougher than what national standards require?  I don't see that one working.  Well, with the Trump Administration all agencies are on opposite day, so the EPA might be wanting to crack down on them now.  So you might be right there. 

Immigration?  When the Chamber of Commerce wants immigration stopped we'll stop it. The Trump Immigration Crisis started out for show, and now it is a humanitarian crisis.  Before he started screwing with it, our illegal immigration rate was the lowest it had been in a decade. But local communities refusing the feds' demand that they use their resources for federal immigration issues is not a big stites rats issue either, other than states looking to recoup money for unfunded mandates. Like so many of Trumps projects both before and after he took office, someone else gets left to pick up the tab. 

I disagree.  I have no issue with CA having Emission standards higher than the federal standard.  Nor do I have issues with states that have tougher immigration enforcement standards than the feds.  

In either case, it would be a no no to have the standards lower than the federal one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Really? so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

...

The tenth amendment means nothing in practical terms. It's a truism, say the courts. About as meaningless as the words "privileges and immunities" in another amendment.

14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

They own the whole place now, and yet, how often do we see the states rights argument when it involves something other than allowing the state to discriminate?  I wish I had a nice view of it, but I just don't see it used nicely anywhere. States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

So the Stites Rats argument up in NY is just a smokescreen for discrimination and screwing over groups of people?

I actually agree but am surprised to see you say something like that about a gun control law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I disagree.  I have no issue with CA having Emission standards higher than the federal standard.  Nor do I have issues with states that have tougher immigration enforcement standards than the feds.  

In either case, it would be a no no to have the standards lower than the federal one.  

Take it up with the Chamber of Commerce. They’re the ones who fought Arizona. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

States use that shield as a sword to screw some group of people out of something...and when the feds are doing the screwing, we don't hear about states' rights.

Selective enforcement is good for the power brokers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The Joker, relying on an unnamed anonymous source when he wants to argue, like a good little hypocritical Trumpalo.

How is using the OP’s link an unnamed anonymous source?  

Oh wait you didn’t read the link, just jumped right in with your outrage all stoked by unnamed anonymous sources.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

The tenth amendment means nothing in practical terms. It's a truism, say the courts. About as meaningless as the words "privileges and immunities" in another amendment.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in actions that criticize federal dominance over the state. In the 1997 decision, Printz v United States (remember that one)?, Justice Scalia opined "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program," Scalia said. "Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

The Founders knew exactly what they had constructed in the Tenth Amendment. To regard it in " practical terms as nothing" is a naivete that I am quite happy to not share with you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because dumbfuck the "two people briefed on the matter" were never named, aka, they are anonymous. And they are the source for your talking point in the article. Now @chum will give you a pass because he's a stupid troll too who relies on herd emotions, like some cunt making money off her husbands corpse via viral videos , but other people outside the conservative troll farm have standards 

 

Ok so this whole thread is based on anonymous sources that you believe when it comes to the thread title, but don’t believe because I pointed out what the same sources said, in the same fucking story.   

  You are one mixed up cupcake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because dumbfuck the "two people briefed on the matter" were never named, aka, they are anonymous. And they are the source for your talking point in the article. Now @chum will give you a pass because he's a stupid troll too who relies on herd emotions, like some cunt making money off her husbands corpse via viral videos , but other people outside the conservative troll farm have standards 

 

:lol: I’m really inside your head ain’t I Miss? I can show you they way out of this miserable wasteland if you let me. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Only because you are the perfect avatar for the fat, lazy, stupid, online, but fucking idiot, pseudo middle america Trumpalo troll that always is on message but who's health insurance can't afford him the blue pills that will give him a  boner for a real woman, not an AOC popped Fux news hate fuck

:lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The Supreme Court has already ruled in actions that criticize federal dominance over the state. In the 1997 decision, Printz v United States (remember that one)?, Justice Scalia opined "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program," Scalia said. "Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

The Founders knew exactly what they had constructed in the Tenth Amendment. To regard it in " practical terms as nothing" is a naivete that I am quite happy to not share with you.

 

Just reporting what the court said.

Quote

In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, y'all have long forgotten that in the early to mid 2000's 

when Ohio cities and other local jurisdictions saw the monster housing fraud being cranked up by the banksters 

the Dubya Bush admin Treasury Dept. intervened, declaring that local govts could not regulate the 

housing loan (i.e., scam) industry (some corporate Dems were also despicable) 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27121535/ns/business-us_business/t/states-warned-about-impending-mortgage-crisis/#.XXR3EShKiM8

And again, it's all about the preemption . .   

(The article cited here is actually pretty good) 

jeez I despise the One Percent, Oligarchy, Reich . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Just reporting what the court said.

 

One of the clowns you quoted actually clerked for Justice Scalia, more than once. It's hard to believe he didn't pick up anything from Scaia. The other clown is the current CEO of Legal Zoom, " Where life meets Legal" and whose other claims to fame is O.J. Simpson. I kind of wish you had found more authoritative sources.

 

54 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941).

Darby was almost completely decided using the Commerce Clause, after reading the decision, I don't know why they referenced the 10th Amendment at all. Darby was the one who raised that Amendment and the court gave it no consideration, The Commerce Clause was all but exclusively used for deciding the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Take it up with the Chamber of Commerce. They’re the ones who fought Arizona. 

The Chamber did, really?

Quote

Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law were filed, including one by the United States Department of Justice, that also asked for an injunction against enforcement of the law.[18] The day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions.[19] 

I was not aware the CoC controlled the DOJ or federal judges.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
12 hours ago, chum said:

:lol: I’m really inside your head ain’t I Miss? I can show you they way out of this miserable wasteland if you let me. 

Only because you are the perfect avatar for the fat, lazy, stupid, online, but fucking idiot, pseudo middle america Trumpalo troll that always is on message but who's health insurance can't afford him the blue pills that will give him a  boner for a real woman, not an AOC popped Fux news hate fuck

Yep @chum, you have seriously got this kid triggered.  Golf Clap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Darby was the one who raised that Amendment and the court gave it no consideration,

Eggs Acklee.

On 9/6/2019 at 4:33 PM, badlatitude said:

so what does this part of the Constitution mean then?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Still nothing in practical terms as I said. Can you find a case saying otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The Chamber did, really?

I was not aware the CoC controlled the DOJ or federal judges.  

Yes they did. All the way to the Supreme Court. They may control the DOJ but they most definitely did not control the courts back then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the OP is that the Reich goes on and on about the sanctity of local control . .

until it conflicts with the oligarchic agenda . .  

One of the most amazing recent ones took place in Mizzou when the government of St. Louis passed and 

implemented a minimum wage increase, and then the state legislature passed a law to the effect that localities 

could not pass such acts. Thousands of workers got an instant cut in pay. 

Americans are just so passive - why aren't they rioting in the streets ? 

Good article on preemption here  . .  

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/st-louis-minimum-wage-preemption/538182/

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 3:47 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's not just CA. It's California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

 Trump is choosing to pick on California because picking on California gives the Republican base boners and allows for the usual cliche ridden frothy bullshit media miasma the base love to eat up.

I honestly didn't know that those other states had also adopted CA emissions rqmts - appreciate being squared away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I honestly didn't know that those other states had also adopted CA emissions rqmts - appreciate being squared away. 

Don't buy a used car in CT. Ever. Waste of money. You drive it 60 miles and you are fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

crash it and you're even more fucked?  Home of america's insurance industry.

I've come out ahead on that. When I got hit by a recklesss driver, I sued. You always have to sue. That's part of the deal. But in the end I got my fucking car paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Don't buy a used car in CT. Ever. Waste of money. You drive it 60 miles and you are fucked.

Can you elaborate? I'm not following the argument here and, who knows, one day I might be shopping for a used car....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anomaly2 said:

Can you elaborate? I'm not following the argument here and, who knows, one day I might be shopping for a used car....

The emissions rules are stringent. Every car that gets  a yellow light glowing on the dash has a problem. You take it to your mechanic and he resets it. Then you sell the car. The new buyer sees no problem. Buys the car. Then the light comes on. You go for emissions and it fails of course. But to fix it, you have to spend a bunch of cash. You can get a waiver---but only if you spend at least the minimum (about 900 bucks keeps going up) but have to bona fide--so you may have to spend say 1500 bucks first. So you basically destroy the economy of buying a used car. The downside is too great. Just not worth it. Waiver good for 1 year only. Actual repair worth two years.

Now you might be lucky and get away with the turn off trick. But you might not. In my case it was the canister that absorbs gasoline vapors. The reset didn't work.

I've replaced catalytics at least 3 times in 15 years, keeping these cars legal, and two of the canister thingies.

You buy a new ordinary car and you will have an ownership cost of well under 20 cents per mile for the captial expediture not including tires oil gas. And that will be good for 150k miles. You buy a car with 125 k for "cheap" and then you find yourself nickdiming to 30 cents per mile...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Ohio Republicans close to imposing near-total ban on municipal broadband

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ohio-republicans-close-to-imposing-near-total-ban-on-municipal-broadband/

Tom will be along shortly to say that states' rights matter. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Jeff will say that you shouldn't use email. You shouldn't use email.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Ohio Republicans close to imposing near-total ban on municipal broadband

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ohio-republicans-close-to-imposing-near-total-ban-on-municipal-broadband/

Tom will be along shortly to say that states rights matter. Guy will be concerned yet optimistic. Jeff will say that you shouldn't use email.

This is quite the race back to the Stone Age. WTF is wrong with these people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

Ummm... I'm just spitballing here but - stupidity?

I was going to go with greed. These people aren't shutting down government services in favour of private services just out of habit. Somebody got/will get a payday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Municipal broadband is like the public option for Obamacare. If the JizzKidz can't compete against municipal broadband and the public option, maybe it's because they're not actually competitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 2008 my small town in Indiana tried to do municipal internet, concentrating near the school and park (which coincidentally was also near the most expensive houses).  This was seen as a way to retain population.   They were told it was illegal by the state (also Republican).    This is nothing new.    Spectrum owns a lot of politicians.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Ohio Republicans close to imposing near-total ban on municipal broadband

Hey, good catch. Thanks. 

This sort of corporatist policy making is what Ohio has reaped with years of GOP rule reinforced by extreme gerrymandering. 

And it has real world - and bad - consequences for how people live . . .  Plain Dealer 

In 2013, household median income in Ohio was $46,398, according to the analysis of Census data in "Ohio's Struggling Middle Class," one of two briefs by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. However, in 1984, median household income in Ohio was $49,378 in 2013 dollars, said David Madland, the CAP Fund's managing director of economic policy, who co-authored the brief.

That means Ohio's median income dropped by more than 6 percent during those three decades. Only three other states - North Carolina, Alaska and Nevada, which ranked last with a nearly 18 percent decline to $45,369 -- fared worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Missouri has instructed it's police officers to not enforce any federal fire arm restrictions or laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

 It's called preemption and it's grip is wider than Ohio. 

But in this case of muni broadband it is the same people pre-empting who claim to stand for local control. 

I used to pre-empt sometimes when I played bridge 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

And Missouri has instructed it's police officers to not enforce any federal fire arm restrictions or laws.

I'm ok with that. Fed laws should have Fed enforcement. Whether gunz or immigration.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Tennessee seems determined to usurp Ohio's claim 

to be the most dysfunctional Reich-Wing bat shit crazy state. 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/6/18/2035912/-TN-GOP-threatens-to-dissolve-state-health-dept-for-encouraging-children-to-get-COVID-vaccine

That article at the end says it may be time for them to move, that's dumb.  To combat this stuff liberal need to move out of the cities.  The big tech companies should start relocating workers in clusters to GOP nut job areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

To combat this stuff liberal need to move out of the cities. 

After y'all - though our "city" is only 25K folks. Does that count ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

After y'all - though our "city" is only 25K folks. Does that count ?? 

It's literally the only way to counter gerrymandering.  With the new work from home stuff it is already happening, but it isn't directed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

It's literally the only way to counter gerrymandering.

Not true, not at all. 

It can and should be outlawed by state and federal (fed action is much preferred) legislation 

such as the John Lewis act. If they can get Joe Manchin on board it may happen quite soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Not true, not at all. 

It can and should be outlawed by state and federal (fed action is much preferred) legislation 

such as the John Lewis act. If they can get Joe Manchin on board it may happen quite soon. 

No, that has no chance of passing unless the filibuster goes away, and that is not going to happen.

And the states decide how the districts are drawn, federal laws aren't going to help.  That's in the constitution and no way in hell the current SCOTUS is going to let the FEDs change that.  The FEDs do not get to dictate how districts are drawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Not true, not at all. 

It can and should be outlawed by state and federal (fed action is much preferred) legislation 

such as the John Lewis act. If they can get Joe Manchin on board it may happen quite soon. 

Joe Manchin is living in the past. Don't expect much and you will STILL be disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Real_XYZ said:

No, that has no chance of passing unless the filibuster goes away, and that is not going to happen.

And the states decide how the districts are drawn, federal laws aren't going to help.  That's in the constitution and no way in hell the current SCOTUS is going to let the FEDs change that.  The FEDs do not get to dictate how districts are drawn.

You sure about that?  It wasn't too long ago that the Justice department actually had to sign-off on some redistricting. So the constitutional authority is there. It's just not used at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

I haven’t made my mind up about Manchin. Just dunno. He isn’t Joe Lieberman.  But otherwise, I just don’t know.

He's pining for a pre-Mitch time. It's been awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You sure about that?  It wasn't too long ago that the Justice department actually had to sign-off on some redistricting. So the constitutional authority is there. It's just not used at the moment.

Yeah, those laws are gone and they will not come back unless the filibuster is removed, there are not 60 votes in the senate to pass that thing.

And even if they did remove the filibuster and pass it, we have a right wing SCOTUS now, no way they are going to let that stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I'm ok with that. Fed laws should have Fed enforcement. Whether gunz or immigration.

Does this mean the FBI and National Guard will be going into Missistupidity in force like during the civil rights days?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I'm ok with that. Fed laws should have Fed enforcement. Whether gunz or immigration.

ALL law enforcement personnel are sworn to uphold all laws, local, state, and federal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Yeah, those laws are gone and they will not come back unless the filibuster is removed, there are not 60 votes in the senate to pass that thing.

And even if they did remove the filibuster and pass it, we have a right wing SCOTUS now, no way they are going to let that stand.

Even a super right wing group would have difficulty saying Congress can't pass some laws on this:

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

ALL law enforcement personnel are sworn to uphold all laws, local, state, and federal.

And we know that's an impossibility or they would be forever stuck arresting this jaywalker, or that noisy dude, or maybe the couple over there having oral sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Even a super right wing group would have difficulty saying Congress can't pass some laws on this:

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

You think they couldn't bullshit their way around that?  Remember than corperations are people and money is speech now, and that was with a more leftist SCOTUS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Are they?  I doubt it.  ICE can't enforce traffic laws.

Are you sure?  I have seen wildlife officers pull over people for traffic violations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

You think they couldn't bullshit their way around that? 

Come on dude, Raz'r schooled you. 

I think your heart is in the right place, but your analysis is a bit off. 

Of course the filibuster has to go for the vote rights bill to pass. 

We all, well most of us, know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Come on dude, Raz'r schooled you. 

I think your heart is in the right place, but your analysis is a bit off. 

Of course the filibuster has to go for the vote rights bill to pass. 

We all, well most of us, know that. 

I never said I knew everything about everything, but the people on SCOTUS can vote however they want and no one can say shit.  If the right wingers don't want the gerrymandering rules changed then they won't be changed.

But the filibuster isn't going anywhere so it isn't going to be an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Real_XYZ said:

I ever said I knew everything about everything, but the people on SCOTUS can vote however they want and no one can say shit.  If the right wingers don't want the gerrymandering rules changed then they won't be changed.

But the filibuster isn't going anywhere so it isn't going to be an issue.

You are mistaken on two counts above - see the Raz'r quote from the constitution; and of course the filibuster only needs 50 votes plus Kamela to blow it up, which cannot come too soon. 

If the Dems do not do that, there will be no infrastructure bill, no immigrations reform, and no nationally mandated voting rights. 

(As an aside - Come on, where is my stalker-troll??  He's really falling down on the job !! @LB 15 

get with it ya thoroughly nasty Ozzie punk !!) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I never said I knew everything about everything,

I don't know everything either, which should be obvious to all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

 and of course the filibuster only needs 50 votes plus Kamela to blow it up, which cannot come too soon. 

Yes, and that isn't going to happen, they don't have the votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Real_XYZ said:

Yes, and that isn't going to happen, they don't have the votes.

Um, they need 50 plus Kamala to change the Senate rules.  

And folks are working on those votes. 

Have you been following the news on that ?? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/stacey-abrams-backs-manchin-s-compromise-voting-legislation-n1271134

I'm not saying that it is going to happen, but it could happen. 

Hope springs eternal . . 

(Where are my trolls ??  @LB 15 @Blue Crab Get your act together !!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Um, they need 50 plus Kamala to change the Senate rules.  

Right, they do not have the votes.  They have 49 votes to get rid of the filibuster, that's not going to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck States, they aren't people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bridhb said:

On I-95

I think that “ability to” and “must enforce” are very different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2021 at 6:22 PM, The_Real_XYZ said:

Remember than corperations are people and money is speech now, and that was with a more leftist SCOTUS.

What was the partisan makeup of the court in 1886 anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.aea90ce4cb8343dd01e0b37fc768aa51.png

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/ohio-gop-ends-attempt-to-ban-municipal-broadband-after-protest-from-residents/

Tom will be along shortly to praise this bipartisan effort to overturn govmint overreach. PS, guns.

I play in this space a bit, and there is definitely a place and a demand for municipal broadband networks. We picked up an award a few years back from the FTTH council in the USA for helping develop a ruggedised cost effective fibre optic system  for rural areas where it can be some distance between dwellings, something that last mile fibre networks traditionally struggle to do efficiently.

It was pretty simple modifications to the existing networks and turned out to be a bit of a game changer for doing rural areas. We did the work with a couple of US vendors and they went on to doing a lot of good things. Not with Comcast or a Verizon but with.... good old municipal broadband networks. 

Got the broadband speed up to 80/20mbps with the same distances up from 10/1, and it’s cheaper to deploy.