The 2018 Midterms

[sturg33]

But, um, nothing about that is reducing the power of government, as you suggested. It’s simply transferring it from one branch to another. That’s what’s constitutes the clownish take. That, and ignoring the gerrymandering.

Legal, yes. But we weren’t disputing whether it was legal. Now, I’m tempted to ask if you think that drawing the district maps when you have the governorship and the legislature so that a minority of votes will win you 2/3 of seats, then legislating power away from the governorship when you lose it is quite how things are intended to work.

They're reducing the authority of the executive branch. These folks were the ones who the public elected to make such decisions... most of them were re-elected. This isn't authoritarian fascism that usual hair-on-fire crowd is screaming about.

Whether that is how it was intended - I don't know. If not, they should probably just do away with the lame-duck period from election day.

I'm sure you know this has been done by both sides. I'm sure you'll say, of course, "that that doesn't hold water."

[sturg33]

I guess I also have to question our resident libertarian for falling back on the (apparent...we’ll see) legality of the thing.

Extreme gerrymandering essentially suppressed or nullifies votes. Votes being the only currency of the individuals who make up the state, it seems like those individuals’ right to self-determination is being infringed by an unrepresentative body. Seems like an end-run around those individuals’ rights, legal or not, might tweak his tail a little bit, but apparently not.

Can you point me to the laws that are being passed that are infringing on individual rights?

[Julio3000]

They're reducing the authority of the executive branch. These folks were the ones who the public elected to make such decisions... most of them were re-elected. This isn't authoritarian fascism that usual hair-on-fire crowd is screaming about.

Whether that is how it was intended - I don't know. If not, they should probably just do away with the lame-duck period from election day.

I'm sure you know this has been done by both sides. I'm sure you'll say, of course, "that that doesn't hold water."

You said it was reducing the power of government, chief.

[Julio3000]

Can you point me to the laws that are being passed that are infringing on individual rights?

Given that partisan gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (despite subsequent failures to agree on a standard) and that racial gerrymandering has been clearly held to be illegal, as affirmed by several recent decisions, I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If a heavily gerrymandered state legislature—which is, let’s remember, not a genuinely representative body—votes itself more power, it’s not too hard to make the case that individual rights are being violated. You can cleave to “but it’s legal” for the time being, but it’s only legal ‘til it’s not. NC’s legislative maps were legal until they went to Federal court. Hell, Jim Crow was legal. Those legislative maps will lose in court. Until then, I’ll just note that you’re hostile to the various individual rights at play here.

[smoltzie29]

Given that partisan gerrymandering has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS (despite subsequent failures to agree on a standard) and that racial gerrymandering has been clearly held to be illegal, as affirmed by several recent decisions, I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. If a heavily gerrymandered state legislature—which is, let’s remember, not a genuinely representative body—votes itself more power, it’s not too hard to make the case that individual rights are being violated. You can cleave to “but it’s legal” for the time being, but it’s only legal ‘til it’s not. NC’s legislative maps were legal until they went to Federal court. Hell, Jim Crow was legal. Those legislative maps will lose in court. Until then, I’ll just note that you’re hostile to the various individual rights at play here.

Which laws being passed are infringing individual rights?

If there are, that's abhorrent

[Julio3000]

Which laws being passed are infringing individual rights?

If there are, that's abhorrent

“legislators voted to restrict early voting, an unsubtle response to the massive turnout in the Democratic strongholds of Dane and Milwaukee Counties that helped Democrats sweep the statewide ballot on November 6. But the attack on early voting will likely be struck down by the courts. Indeed, their similar effort in 2016 was ruled unconstitutional”

Infringing individual rights is indeed abhorrent.

[Julio3000]

Nice little election fraud going on in NC-9.

[smoltzie29]

“legislators voted to restrict early voting, an unsubtle response to the massive turnout in the Democratic strongholds of Dane and Milwaukee Counties that helped Democrats sweep the statewide ballot on November 6. But the attack on early voting will likely be struck down by the courts. Indeed, their similar effort in 2016 was ruled unconstitutional”

Infringing individual rights is indeed abhorrent.

Any laws?

[goldfly]

Nice little election fraud going on in NC-9.

i'm glad the last couple years have proven that everything republicans scream the most about needing to stop from happening in this country or protect ourselves from etc


is really just them doing it themselves



they will lie, cheat and steal and won't apologize for doing it either

as long as they "win"

[goldfly]

only freedom lover could say that say a state like NC where the vote was nearly 50/50

and somehow republicans won 10 of 13 seats


and him try to argue that bull**** isn't going on from the republican side

[50PoundHead]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it constitutional and just because something is constitutional doesn't make it right (we could go on about the latter all day with arguments coming from both sides as to what is moral). What bugs me here is intent and using a lame-duck session to accomplish the task. I get that Evers would veto any changes if they were to be passed in 2019, but the Wisconsin Legislature is still controlled by Republicans (heavily in the State Assembly), so they could thwart most everything Evers proposes if they choose to without resorting to partially invalidating a vote for Evers. A majority of Wisconsinites voted for Evers assuming that he would have the full powers of the Governorship. The Legislature's actions here do betray that at some level.

[Julio3000]

Any laws?

Is a law allowing/disallowing early voting a law? Christ, just take the L.

[smoltzie29]

I didn't know early voting was an individual right. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm not the one who claimed removing executive power was authoritarian and facist.

[Julio3000]

I didn't know early voting was an individual right. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm not the one who claimed removing executive power was authoritarian and facist.

Sturg, when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law, what basis do they use?

[The Chosen One]

Sturg, when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law, what basis do they use?

He's not sturg fyi.

[Julio3000]

I didn't know early voting was an individual right. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm not the one who claimed removing executive power was authoritarian and facist.

No, you’re the one who claimed, incorrectly, that they were reducing the power of government.

[smoltzie29]

No, you’re the one who claimed, incorrectly, that they were reducing the power of government.

Oh my bad.

Back to our regularly scheduled "this is literally facism" hysteria

[smoltzie29]

I know this wont hold water but, facism was cool when it was Dems doing it

.........

It’s certainly within the realm of reason to find all this legislative maneuvering distasteful, but it cannot be called unprecedented. As Case Western University Law Professor Jonathan Adler helpfully reminded American political observers in 2016, attempts by partisan legislators to handcuff incoming executives of the other party is practically tradition in North Carolina.

When the governor’s mansion changed hands in 1972, 1984, and 1988, legislative Democrats were behind the effort to rein in the new Republican governor’s appointment power. “This history does not excuse what North Carolina Republicans have done,” Adler correctly noted. But they failed to recognize that the precedents that Tarheel State Republicans were building upon led to an appalling lack of perspective among garment-rending political commentators.

Nor is North Carolina the only state in which Democrats engaged in precisely the same legislative actions they now insist are indistinguishable from a putsch.

Following a state-wide electoral rebellion against New Jersey Governor Jim Florio in 1991, the Democratic Party lost control of both legislative chambers. On the eve of decennial reapportionment and with New Jersey set to lose a congressional seat, that would have left Republicans in control of the consequential federal redistricting process. That simply would not do, and so legislative Democrats spent the lame-duck session ceding legislative redistricting authority to an independent commission.

When Republican Bruce Rauner won an upset victory over Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, legislative Democrats moved in the lame-duck session to truncate the length of the term to which the governor could appoint a comptroller from four years to two. Democrats, Quinn included, claimed that this actually made the system more democratic, since it put the vacancy to a vote of the public sooner. “I think democracy is always better when the people call the shots, when the people are in charge,” Quinn said. “Not only is the action planned for tomorrow unconstitutional,” House Republican leader Jim Durkin countered, “it’s nothing short of a power grab by the Democratic majority in a lame-duck session.”

Had former Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry been elected to the presidency in 2004, then-Gov. Mitt Romney would have been legally obliged to appoint his replacement to the U.S. Senate, and that replacement would presumably have been a Republican. The Democrats in the state legislature couldn’t have that, so they overrode Romney’s veto to strip his office of senatorial appointment power. But following the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2009, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick was hamstrung by that very same law. So, Massachusetts Democrats simply repealed it.

Brazen power grabs like those above are fortunately rare, but active lame-duck sessions—particularly those that precede a transfer of legislative control from one party to the next—are not. Suffice it to say that Democrats are not the deferential stewards of transition periods their sympathizers in the press make them out to be.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...in-coup-wasnt/

[Julio3000]

“That simply would not do, and so legislative Democrats spent the lame-duck session ceding legislative redistricting authority to an independent commission.“

Haha, an independent commission. How awful.

This is the only response you can muster, and the only apples-to-apples you can find are from 30 years ago.

Listen, I never said it was fascism...nor did anyone. I never even said authoritarian, though it certainly creeps in that direction. Your continually using that strawman just further clowns yourself.

[smoltzie29]

You may wish to go to the original post I responded to, where the more was seen as authorianism... i responded directly to that claim, which caused your little hissy fit