|
Teddybear posted:I’ll give credit to McSally and the Republican SoS in Arizona, whose name eludes me at the moment; unlike Scott and the gang in Florida, they’re being exactly as responsible, mature, and respectable as you would want officials to be in an extremely close election. The SoS even put out an explainer of why ballots are taking so long, knocking down conspiracy theories that others are stoking. Yeah, I thought Marshall put it well here, McSally's interests are not aligned with the national party's in Arizona due to the likelihood of being appointed and having to run another race in two years, but Rick Scott's are perfectly https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1061431741804634112
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:That bit about Florida's Hispanic population is incredibly depressing. What the hell would make Republicans attractive down there outside of the ever-shrinking population of Cuban exile dickheads who still think it's 1960? Florida has the highest Venezuelan expat population of any state and my impression is that they are not on the left. They're still relatively small compared to other nationalities (something in the range of 100,000 as of 2010 census, probably somewhat larger now), but Cubans certainly aren't the only conservative hispanic demographic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Amendment 4 isn’t quite as automatic as it sounds— there’s a requirement to repay court costs, I believe, that’s going to make it tough for the very poor to afford restoration. But it will have an impact if by sheer numbers alone— we’re talking over a million newly eligible voters. Even if a fraction of them meet the new requirements and vote, that’s hundreds of thousands of new voters. Florida in 2020 is going to look different from 2018, for sure. I've repeatedly seen this come up with people poo-pooing Amendment 4's potential effect (not that you are here) but to date I've seen no statistics that suggests there's a huge population of former felons that still have outstanding court fees. While I'm sure some exist - particularly ones that have very recently finished jail or probation - I'm skeptical it's enough to seriously affect things when we're talking about 1.5 million people. A whole lot of those probably completed their sentences years or decades ago, and it's hard to go about your life for that long owing a court a lot of money because many will start doing punitive poo poo like suspending your driver's license for it. I could be wrong, but I know people that were involved with getting the amendment on the ballot this year and none of them seem to be sounding the alarm that there's still this huge impediment that could seriously diminish the impact of the win.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:As a legit question, is there a plan for a charity or something so that people can donate to help defray these costs? What's an impossible amount of money for somebody who's poor isn't for me or a lot of other people, and I think getting ex-criminals (with a few caveats that the actual ammendment covers) back involved with the democratic process is a pretty good thing. It's also a help you-help me situation, since I think that adding these people to the electorate would do wonders at pushing the GOP to be more reasonable in their rhetoric. Teddybear posted:I’ll defer to you, then; I don’t know the details of Florida criminal law, I practice neither Florida law nor criminal law, so I go off my understandings from afar. I was doing some quick searching and I see basically no discussion of this being an issue on twitter, nor are there any notable news pieces on it. If it does become a serious issue and there's mobilization around it and places to donate to help pay court fees in the runup to the next election, I'll definitely be posting about it here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The key issue I see here is, how easy is it to put roadblocks in front of people trying to pay their court fees to keep people disenfranchised? Seems like it would be difficult to me, local courts aren't exactly trying to stop people from paying them their pound of flesh. I did some more looking and it's actually much more questionable than has been suggested whether court fees that're not part of a sentence are even included: the ACLU says they'll be suing if it's implemented like that, as the Amendment ONLY reads "upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation." quote:That means convicted felons who have completed their sentences should be able to walk into their county elections office and register to vote starting on that day, said Howard Simon, retiring executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. The amendment does not apply to those convicted of murder or sex crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Depending on the average size of the fees, we're easily talking up to hundreds of millions of dollars of collective fees which the state and local governments for some reason aren't bothering collecting. That's a lot of foregone revenue that's hard to explain in terms of concerns for the rights and welfare of people convicted of crimes by all parties involved. What I was discussing wasn't any "foregone revenue" out of the goodness of anyone's hearts, so I'm not sure why you're characterizing it like that. The literal text of the amendment limits it to court-ordered fees or restitution - ones that are "terms of [the] sentence" - which is meaningfully different than 'any court-related fees you might owe.' Again, quote:... any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation. eke out fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
"Actually, you're the racist for saying this is racist" https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1061756437163114498
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Nemo Somen posted:The bottom two issues are the ones with the largest split between Republicans and Democrats, so no wonder they would be at the bottom. The poll also demonstrates that Republicans are very much still the party for people who value personal wealth over other issues. Additionally, even if the Russia investigation has the lowest importance rating that could just be a signal that some people feel that it is being handled well enough. Additionally, democrats didn't run on the Russia investigation at all, barring some edge cases like Rouda where his opponent's hilarious russia-related corruption was a key issue - the closest they came would be saying things like "oversight" or "checks and balances." But anyways, Aaron Mate has spent months saying the Russia probe is fake, or doesn't matter, or people don't care about it, etc. IDK what the deal is but he's been pretty consistent and it's made him one of the go-tos for russiagate disbelievers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Mezzanine posted:RE: Puerto Rico supposedly using disaster relief money to pay of debt you know, i haven't looked at the statutes or anything but i have a very strong feeling that it's literally impossible to spend disaster relief money on paying down debt obligations (in a way that isn't obviously illegal, I mean)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
i was looking at this, and here's what's in the final bill quote:The final version allows a special counsel fired by the attorney general or other senior Justice Department official to challenge the action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It also would protect any and all documents relevant to the special counsel’s investigation during that legal challenge. Better than nothing but.. still kind of poo poo, if the worry is one guy just quietly sabotaging everything as opposed to outright firing everyone. Also this kind of removal protection might not be legal - I think it would be, but it would 100% for-sure be taken up to the Supreme Court if it ever had to be invoked. That said, mandating a report to Congress, as opposed to leaving that to the discretion of the attorney general, though, is very good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There was a huge PR population here even before Irma hit, and now it's bigger some conflux of an already-existing community in the area, extended family, availability of jobs, etc. Polk seems less strange when you start looking at stats like  and, population-wise, Orlando and the surrounding areas are by far the densest outside of the greater Miami area even before the storms (and, for those not familiar, central FL is much cheaper cost of living) 
eke out fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:It will never be considered by the Senate. If you read the story, it says that outright. The point is to be on the record saying "Look, we're trying to reform voting and expand your rights, but the Republicans won't even give it an up or down vote."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elizashapiro/status/1061990224073498630?s=19 It's nice that there's a small amount of good news these days
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
knox_harrington posted:Looks like we're going to be hearing the phrase "Presidential Harrassment" non stop for I guess 2 years then. it's a hilarious phrase that is transparently trying to coopt the term sexual harassment and the more they use it the better
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Full thread on what the judge in that lawsuit is doing: the classic "Why are you here? Settle this poo poo already" lol
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1062044837346709505 gotta come meet prosecutors in person for some reason
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
JasonV posted:If it was, as the Russians claim, a"Military attack" and they can't be held accountable, that does mean that anyone colluding with them would be guilty of treason.... No? This is saying 'For the sake of argument, even if we did it - which we are not admitting - we would be immune from prosecution.' It's not an admission of fault, it's them formally declining to waive their sovereign immunity from this kind of suit (and also no one's going to get charged with treason for like any reason due to the incredibly high standards for that charge). eke out fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It is indeed amusing. Although it's also true that, even if you don't lie, if a prosecutor is trying to indict you and they have access to your... well, everything, then they will find something. After all, the average person breaks what, three laws per day or something like that? well when you are in the official partisan ratfucking business, you've done a whole lot of crimes already so yeah they're going to find something
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Their position until today was "Recusal? Stupid question." so maybe the constant negative coverage is getting to them https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1062134787526266880 note that for some reason this isn't Sarah Isgur Flores speaking (the DOJ spox that was ted cruz's former employee) who is in charge of all triumphal gently caress-you openly-partisan statements to reporters eke out fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:https://twitter.com/DanEggenWPost/status/1062188892785438720 Nielsen's pretty racist, but is she truly racist enough?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I really don't understand why Trump does what he does re: trying to force people out of his administration, Nielsen seems like she's been really effective at getting done what he's wanted done, and yet he wants her gone? there was reporting on this over the summer about how Trump irrationally hates Nielson because she's a Bush acolyte (and he hates Bush people) who only got the job through Kelly, who he also deeply hates but cannot remove because he's too much of a baby
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
apparently it's being prompted most directly by California: the state is in a number of separate legal battles with the Trump administration that have Jeff Sessions' name on them. This puts them in a good place to ask a judge "wait a minute, is this new guy even legally his replacement?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
Gina Haspel was quoted as saying that Erdogan is good, and strong, and her friend https://twitter.com/mattmcgarry/status/1062325181530693633
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
this is probably a long-shot, but it may be interesting https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1062350772652912640 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1062351536045592576
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Can a federal judge even do this? federal judges can do a whole lot of poo poo, in theory - this position that Maryland is taking, that a previous, more specific succession regulation controls here and the position would've automatically defaulted to Rosenstein, feels like the weaker argument compared to the constitutional one we've talked about. English v. Trump, the litigation over the CFPB head, works against this claim. It's still being appealed to the DC circuit so there's not binding precedent, but there the administration won at the district level by basically saying "If there's both a normal regulation that governs succession and also the VRA, we can choose which one we want to apply" - which would be almost the exact same position they'd take here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:How does Maryland have standing in that issue? we'll have to see what they go with when they file something, but blue states tend to have a lot of ongoing litigation that involves the DOJ right now where if the current attorney general is appointed illegally, it would definitely matter e: okay here's much more information - the choice of regulations bit isn't the sole argument, looks like they get to the constitutional question as well https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1062313354373615617 quote:The state’s attorney general, Brian E. Frosh, working with the law firm of Goldstein & Russell, brought the litigation. Thomas C. Goldstein, a partner in the firm, said they planned to file the motion on Tuesday morning. eke out fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:But VRA doesn't apply to Whitaker, as he's not been approved by the Senate, and contrary to what the White House is suggesting, his approval to be AG to the district of Iowa was 12 loving years ago and he's been out of government working for fraudsters during that time. This is not correct, the VRA allows you to pick a Senate-confirmed person OR a GS-15 who has been on the job for more than 90 days - the latter is the reason that his appointment is facially legal. The actual question is whether it is constitutional to allow someone who was not in a Senate-confirmed position to be appointed as a principal officer regardless of what the VRA says, because he definitely technically meets its requirements. eke out fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
however, it's apparently for the dumbest possible reason lol https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1062387089898172423
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
this is a pretty big deal https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1062395325015572482 region 4 is the entire southeast - AL/FL/GA/KY/MS/NC/SC/TN - and regional administrators are extremely important officials
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
JasonV posted:I think that normally the First Lady would just convince her husband to do it since, you know, he's the president. But since he's a coward and wouldn't do it even if she could convince him and, even then, the two of them are barley on speaking terms, I guess this is the way it's done now. enraged_camel posted:She didn't fire just a random staffer. She fired a national security advisor's aide. this 100% didn't happen not only is the person not actually fired, the first lady definitely isn't doing the firing. seriously think about it for a second
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Christ. How many seats have Democrats picked up now? It seems to grow with each day NYT shows 228 democrats (+33) with nine races still undecided. 538 projects D +38 total
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1062722628350341121 So they used Eaton, a century-old case where they had to temporarily appoint someone when an ambassador became deathly ill and you had to spend weeks travelling by boat to get someone else that's Senate-confirmed to Thailand, to justify this. It's a really bad argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
lol it must suck to have to try to pretend you believe this argument https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1062723523645489153 Drone posted:So what stops Trump from just never nominating a successor? Or from intentionally nominating people who are so grossly underqualified that even Senate Republicans wouldn't confirm? (though tbh I literally don't know what that would look like... Trump could nominate Pepe the Frog and the Senate would confirm the fictional cartoon character along party lines). so what stops him from not nominating a successor is that Rod Rosenstein would, by default, act as attorney general. he has to avoid that To your latter point, this is why this practice should be unconstitutional regardless of whether the Vacancies Reform Act technically allows it. The Constitution is pretty black and white about this, and there's lots of poo poo by Hamilton and Madison and co about how the President being able to nominate anyone he wants without Senate involvement is anathema to good governance and how they wrote it this way to avoid that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:At the end of the day the Supreme Court can always do whatever it wants, but assuming this guy is right this is massively embarrassing for the OLC attorney who wrote this, and they'd need to find a new argument about why it was legal instead of a time-warp argument. Luppe agrees: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1062747489550266368 Seems to me like the key thing here is it would allow a reviewing court to say "You guys read the statute wrong, it's not legal to do this" rather than "The VRA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows this to happen." The former is relatively uncontroversial, the latter is a huge opinion that makes big waves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Here's a good brief writeup of some of the things we can infer from the OLC memo about Whitaker's appointment. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1062760192662745088
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1062783900462788611 I feel like this is like the fourth time we've gotten some version of this story in the past month?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's news in itself though. If she doesn't have it locked down, that's news. Also Matt Fuller's probably the pre-eminent house reporter on twitter when it comes to intra-party squabbling over votes. He's definitely the person to follow/take seriously at times like these.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
despite much ado about how Mueller's 'wrapping it up' or whatever bullshit Rudy is pushing on any given day, Gates still actively cooperating with "several" ongoing investigations https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/1062814580823465999
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Hopes? Oh, no no. I have no hopes anymore, 2016 crushed them into a fine powder. It's not crazy to assume something is going on between Corsi's really bizarre behavior this week - talking extensively to the press, promising a huge interview, then his attorney openly telling reporters he's in discussions with the Special Counsel and can't let Corsi talk to the media anymore - and Stone's aggressive leaking of texts to conservative media to try to get ahead of whatever Mueller's got on him. Could still take weeks though, who knows. normal news day: https://twitter.com/moneyries/status/1063051849224388608 eke out fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Nov 15, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The acting attorney general has undoubtedly been given a briefing on the Mueller probe by Rod and Mueller by now, and he's taken that information to the president, because he's a loving hatchet man. nothing you just said is 'undoubted' we literally have no idea what's going on
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 15:30
|
|