The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

But if you -really- investigate it, you will actually find that none of the justices were really one way or the other. They "looked" like they were divided along party lines, but they were more than capable of looking beyond them. Scalia may be the favourite "whipping boy" for democrats to show that the SCOTUS was biased, but really, he was just a constitution hugger who actually understood it.

Right now with a quick google search, i don't see anything when i try to find something to show it, but give me a few days to see if i can..

He's from Kenya??

Chicago. Which is why some say its cronyism.

I am sure people had issues with Scalia's anti-choice rulings as well, and his endorsement of "Citizen's United", didn't stop him being a judge.

And i agree Scalia did somewhat step into it with his 'endorsement of CU'. But his anti-choice rulings were while he was on the SCotus, not prior.. Unlike Obama's nominee who's upholding of the constitutionallity of DC's very restrictive gun control law...

No, those things are all fine, but -please- look into some of the other issues in play here, like non drivers having to travel 3 hours to get to a place to issue ID, and those places only being open on the 3rd Tuesday of every month for 2 hours, and if you miss out, tough.
Seriously man, these are the kinds of local "ordinances" you have to deal with.

?? That's farked up.. I know i have had to travel a little out of my way (just over 1 hr) up here in Ohio when it came time to change my Dl from Mississippi to Ohio, but 3 hrs?? What the heck..

I get local government charging for water, sewerage, garbage collection etc. Property taxes is something I don't know enough about to comment on, and given that they are so variable, I don't have a hope in hell of "getting them" either.

Same here. Our ones here (at least), seem to not only do water, (which we pay otherwise anyway with water bills), garbage, sewage, cops, schools, zoos, elderly centers, kids centers.. All sorts of other crap (well imo), that imo should get hit up for those who USE them, not everyone.

Seems our government has split with moderates and RWNJ's on the other side.

A program introduced to schools to teach anti bullying and tolerance of LGBT students is being attacked as "teaching marxism" by RWN politicians. It's comedy gold watching our politicians amble about like dumb ass sheep.

Agreed. THe rhetoric on both sides is getting out of hand.

[Starsaber]

?? That's farked up.. I know i have had to travel a little out of my way (just over 1 hr) up here in Ohio when it came time to change my Dl from Mississippi to Ohio, but 3 hrs?? What the heck..

Yes, but you were able to drive there because you already had a license. If you're in a city, imagine if you had to take the bus or walk to get there.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, but you were able to drive there because you already had a license. If you're in a city, imagine if you had to take the bus or walk to get there.

Yep.
This is the issue with voter ID laws and such.
It's not the idea of having them people object to, it's how -hard- they make it to get the ID.

[Annoyed]

I strongly support stringent identification for voting, including a photo id.

However, this has been misused, In my area, you can go to the dmv or county clerk during business hours and some Saturdays. Offices scattered around the area. This is proper. and presents no difficulty for anyone.

But think I read somewhere last year some state or region got hauled into court for making it difficult in a deliberate attempt to exclude lower income folks. That is just wrong.

[aretood2]

I strongly support stringent identification for voting, including a photo id.

However, this has been misused, In my area, you can go to the dmv or county clerk during business hours and some Saturdays. Offices scattered around the area. This is proper. and presents no difficulty for anyone.

But think I read somewhere last year some state or region got hauled into court for making it difficult in a deliberate attempt to exclude lower income folks. That is just wrong.

The problem is that DMV's aren't like Starbucks, they are not on every corner. In my area, it wouldn't be much of a problem. If you can't drive you're dependent on others and there are enough DMV's that those people can take you there. If a state wants to make an ID law, then it should also provide the infrastructure and the means for citizens to get that ID. Otherwise I am against it.

[Gatefan1976]

I strongly support stringent identification for voting, including a photo id.

However, this has been misused, In my area, you can go to the dmv or county clerk during business hours and some Saturdays. Offices scattered around the area. This is proper. and presents no difficulty for anyone.

But think I read somewhere last year some state or region got hauled into court for making it difficult in a deliberate attempt to exclude lower income folks. That is just wrong.

Almost universally, you will find that it is red states doing this. See, this is why people blame the repubs dude. The law -in of itself- is not bad. Have voter ID's, no problems at all. It's when you screw around with locations, opening hours etc etc that shows the actual underlying reasons for the laws.

I'll give you another example, but keep your head on, cause it is Abortion. (not the act, but the ordinances)
In Texas, there are now 10 providers where once there were around 80, and this vanishing of services is not due to the law changing to make it illegal, but because of state and local ordinances that require clinics to be all but mini hospitals. Now, the argument is always "we are doing it for women's safety" BUT, the fact is, in early stages, the medical procedures (if any) require no more than what you would find in a day surgery. Because the issue is abortion however, they make ordinances such as the corridors must be 10 foot wide, or they must have a doctor with hospital admitting privilages on staff at all times. How PO'ed would -you- be if your local doctors all started shutting down because they could not afford to fulfil ordinances designed for hospitals with the excuse of "it's for your safety"? There is even a situation in Texas where a doctor, out of his own pocket actually built a clinic to fulfil these crazy arse rules, and as soon as he built it, the local council says "no, sorry, you deal with sex related issues, and your clinic is built within 2000 yards of a school, so we are shutting it down" (effectively labelling the clinic Sex Offenders). They (council) said nothing before it was built, during construction, or at any other stage, but as soon as it opened it's doors, "nope, you are sex offenders"
Wouldn't -you- be PO'ed if you sunk your entire savings into building something to help people (or even just a business), and after you had done all that the council went "nup, shutting you down now, sorry you wasted all your money"??

Sometimes it's not the subject or the issue at hand dude.

[Gatefan1976]

the problem is that dmv's aren't like starbucks, they are not on every corner. In my area, it wouldn't be much of a problem. If you can't drive you're dependent on others and there are enough dmv's that those people can take you there. If a state wants to make an id law, then it should also provide the infrastructure and the means for citizens to get that id. Otherwise i am against it.

b-i-n-g-o!!

[Annoyed]

Didn't some court just put the kibosh on stuff like that in some part of Texas?

[Gatefan1976]

Didn't some court just put the kibosh on stuff like that in some part of Texas?

I don't know, you are telling the story here man!
The question still stands, how would -you- feel about it, either your access to services being cut, or you loosing all your money because someone "didn't like" what you were selling?

[Annoyed]

They should be required to have proper staff and equipment to handle emergencies that may arise in relation to the services they offer.
But 10 ft hall width and other "nuisance" regulations are ridiculous.

The guy who built the place... was that law in place when he built the school? Or was it enacted after the fact?

[Gatefan1976]

They should be required to have proper staff and equipment to handle emergencies that may arise in relation to the services they offer.

Sure, but they do not offer "late term" services dude, they (rightly) direct people in such conditions to a local hospital.

But 10 ft hall width and other "nuisance" regulations are ridiculous.

And yet, they exist, voted in by people who will do anything to stop a legal activity that they do not agree with.

The guy who built the place... was that law in place when he built the school? Or was it enacted after the fact?

After, I thought I made that clear.

[Annoyed]

After, I thought I made that clear.

There is even a situation in Texas where a doctor, out of his own pocket actually built a clinic to fulfil these crazy arse rules, and as soon as he built it, the local council says "no, sorry, you deal with sex related issues, and your clinic is built within 2000 yards of a school, so we are shutting it down" (effectively labelling the clinic Sex Offenders). They (council) said nothing before it was built, during construction, or at any other stage, but as soon as it opened it's doors, "nope, you are sex offenders"

Regardless of whether they said anything, was the law on the books before construction? If yes, too bad, his fault for not checking. But if it wasn't; the law was enacted after the fact, it might not be constitutional; no ex-post facto legislation.

[aretood2]

Sure, but they do not offer "late term" services dude, they (rightly) direct people in such conditions to a local hospital.

And yet, they exist, voted in by people who will do anything to stop a legal activity that they do not agree with.

After, I thought I made that clear.

Isn't that the story of politics though? Otherwise, there'd be nothing to discuss. The problem I have with the "legality" of the practice is that it was never legislated. It's a law without a law. I don't agree with Roe vs Wade on procedural grounds int that it should not weigh in as a law overriding any future law. I see the merit in judicial review, but that review in my opinion is way out of balance. Just look at what SCOTUS did to the voting rights act.

[Gatefan1976]

Regardless of whether they said anything, was the law on the books before construction? If yes, too bad, his fault for not checking. But if it wasn't; the law was enacted after the fact, it might not be constitutional; no ex-post facto legislation.

Oh for the love of whatever.
NO IT WAS NOT ON THE BLOODY BOOKS.
They altered local laws to make it that way.

[Gatefan1976]

Isn't that the story of politics though? Otherwise, there'd be nothing to discuss.

No, it isn't.

The problem I have with the "legality" of the practice is that it was never legislated. It's a law without a law.

What law?
What practice?

I don't agree with Roe vs Wade on procedural grounds int that it should not weigh in as a law overriding any future law. I see the merit in judicial review, but that review in my opinion is way out of balance. Just look at what SCOTUS did to the voting rights act.

Roe V Wade -WAS- judicial review.
As for what they did to the V.R.A, all that was, was back door working around the 14th amendment, I guess it should have borrowed the second ones gun.....................