ChrisWeigant.com

Illinois Becomes 11th State To Legalize Marijuana

[ Posted Wednesday, June 26th, 2019 – 15:30 UTC ]

Illinois just became the eleventh state in the country to legalize recreational marijuana for its citizens. When added to Washington D.C., this means that 23.5 percent of the country's jurisdictions have now fully legalized marijuana. The tide has obviously now turned on what used to be an unthinkable political concept.

Illinois is notable because they passed this new law through their legislature, rather than via a ballot initiative. This means that politicians are getting more comfortable with the concept, and they no longer have to live in fear of being punished at the ballot box for not being tough enough on crime. This more than anything else fueled the War On Weed through its darkest decades (the 1980s and 1990s). Republicans successfully painted Democrats as being weak on law-and-order issues, and Democrats reacted by trying to appear the toughest drug warriors around. You can argue that the culmination of this downward spiral was the 1994 crime bill -- the same one that Joe Biden is going to have to try to defend later tonight -- but we're going to leave debate analysis until tomorrow for now.

What was really notable in Illinois is that the governor actively campaigned on legalization, swearing it was one of his top priorities. He just delivered on that promise in a big way. Illinois is also trying to be more comprehensive in its legalization law than other states, including wiping out old marijuana convictions and guaranteeing a fair amount of licenses for minority-owned businesses. This is far more proactive than other states have been, and could become a new standard for other states to follow in the future. But the key is that a politician won office by being strongly for legalization -- something that would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago.

In 2008, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would admit to being for legalizing marijuana on the federal level. In 2016, Clinton had softened her stance somewhat, but still shied away from supporting anything other than state-level medicinal marijuana legalization. Now almost every Democrat running for president supports changing federal marijuana laws in one way or another. Several of the candidates are fully behind "descheduling" marijuana entirely and treating it as we do alcohol. That's a real sea change in a very short period of time.

Illinois becomes the second Midwestern state to fully legalize, joining Michigan. New England has three fully-legal states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts). The entire West Coast has legalized (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California), as well as two other Western states (Nevada, Colorado). There are still two prominent regions of the country without any legal states (the Mid-Atlantic region and the South), but the idea is catching on everywhere else.

Legalization advocates have raised their own goals, due to all this success. Where they used to be pushing solely for legalization on the state level, they are now setting their sights higher. Because the prohibition of marijuana will not be over until it is legal to possess and use marijuana anywhere in the country. This will require two big changes in federal law -- descheduling marijuana and making it federally legal to possess anywhere. This is the new "end of the road" for legalization -- being able to pack some marijuana in your car and drive anywhere, without fear of being arrested.

The model for this happening is how America ended alcohol's Prohibition. There are still thousands of "blue laws" on the books all over the country concerning the sale of alcohol. In many places, it is illegal to buy alcohol on a Sunday (so much for separation of church and state...), at certain hours of the day or night, or even at all -- there are still dry counties all over the place where sales are absolutely prohibited. Each locality was left to set its own policies as to the sale of alcohol to the public. But -- and this is key -- even in a dry county, it is still legal to own and drink alcohol. You just can't buy it there, that's all. You are free, however, to buy it elsewhere and transport it into a dry county without fear of being arrested. Before the safety restrictions on liquids came into effect, you could bring a bottle of alcohol onto a plane and fly anywhere in the country, as well.

That is now the goal for marijuana. Individual states and counties and cities should be able to set all the restrictions they wish on the sale of marijuana (and its public use), but they should not have the power to make mere possession (or use, in a private setting) illegal in any way.

I sincerely doubt the subject will even arise in tonight's debate. But if it does, this is what I will personally be looking for in a candidate -- one who agrees that the War On Weed should end, period. Every American citizen should be able to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes no matter where they happen to live. The federal government should regulate marijuana in the exact same way it regulates alcohol -- no more, no less. The government's sole concern should be the safety and purity of the product, guaranteeing that you won't be poisoned or sickened by anything you buy. But that should be the extent of their concern.

We're not there yet. We're going to get there when more politicians realize what just happened in Illinois can happen everywhere. Politicians can actively and strongly support legalization and it won't hurt them at the ballot box -- in fact, it will help them gain votes. So far, this has mostly been a political plus for Democrats, but it really isn't (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue. Poll after poll shows that Americans support full legalization almost across the board, so sooner or later Republicans will have to face this fact as well, or pay a political price. The people are leading and -- slowly -- the politicians are beginning to follow.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

111 Comments on “Illinois Becomes 11th State To Legalize Marijuana”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    I will not be writing a snap-reaction column to tonight's debate, sorry. I will write such a column tomorrow and Friday to review each night of the first debate round. But, as I warned last week, this will pre-empt the Friday Talking Points column this week.

    Just to let everyone know in advance, and happy debate watching, everyone!

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sorry, that should have read: "I will not be posting a snap-reaction column tonight" -- I will indeed be writing and posting one tomorrow, though...

    Sorry for any confusion...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, as I warned last week, this will pre-empt the Friday Talking Points column this week.

    Thank God for small miracles. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It takes more than that to confuse this bunch. Ahem.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I sincerely doubt the subject will even arise in tonight's debate.

    I don't think there'll be any time for that, tonight, this week … if you know what I mean.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:


    ____________________00__________________
    ___________________0000_________________
    __________________000000________________
    _______00_________000000__________00____
    ________0000______000000______00000_____
    ________000000____0000000___0000000_____
    _________000000___0000000_0000000_______
    __________0000000_000000_0000000________
    ____________000000_00000_000000_________
    ____0000_____000000_000_0000__000000000_
    _____000000000__0000_0_000_000000000____
    ________000000000__0_0_0_000000000______
    ____________0000000000000000____________
    _________________000_0_0000_____________
    _______________00000_0__00000___________
    ______________00_____0______00__________
    ________________________________________

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Great news.

    This will help One Demand catch on in Illinois.

    Like many ideas, it gets better the more you smoke. :D

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    So Dan Froomkin tweets this: (https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/1144067904813621248)

    "CNN’s fact-checking team apparently somewhat dumbstruck by the lack of lies. So far: one “check” and it’s basically true."

    It was as good a debate as could be expected with 10 people and 2 hours. I'm proud of my party.

    Liz Warren did well as anticipated; runner-ups were Cory Booker and Julian Castro - either of whom would make a great VP for Liz Warren. I liked Klobuchar's performance too. Beto seemed fine to me - not great, but fine - but many seem to think he didn't. I like him, but not for POTUS.

    On to tomorrow!

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -

    I largely agree. Hadn't heard that about the fact-checking, but it certainly rings true.

    What did you think of De Blasio interrupting so much?

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Sweet ASCII art! Takes me back...

    :-)

    -CW

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Judging from analyses of the debate tonight, I'm guessing that Senator Booker knew he was wrong to attack Joe Biden with lies and disingenuousness.

    That's leadership.

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's just DeBlasio. Folks always get surprised by New York liberals. They're so much more macho than west coast liberals.

    I thought that tonight's winners were:

    Castro
    Klobuchar
    Gabbard
    Warren

    Losers were O'Rourke, Inslee, and the egg headed guy on the end.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illinois Becomes 11th State To Legalize Marijuana

    https://97x.com/illinois-named-absolute-worst-state-for-taxpayers/

    Correlation?? :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judging from analyses of the debate tonight, I'm guessing that Senator Booker knew he was wrong to attack Joe Biden with lies and disingenuousness.

    How so??

    I didn't watch the debate so I would be very interested in your take..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, we're passed the Kiddie Table debate..

    On to the main event.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting

    Drudge poll shock: Tulsi Gabbard runaway winner of first Democratic debate<
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/drudge-poll-shock-tulsi-gabbard-winning-first-democratic-debate

    Tulsi is Terrible but Redeemable on the Second Amendment

    She is too anti-Constitutional Rights for me to support..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    WATCH: MSNBC Debate Melts Down Over Hot Mic Disaster

    MSNBC’s coverage unraveled midway through its first opportunity as Democratic debate host after several hot microphones from first-half moderators Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie and Jose Diaz-Balart continued to echo through the hall and the audio feed after they had left the stage.

    Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow began a question about guns, but soon even the candidates were laughing at all the backstage chatter from Guthrie that could be heard. Todd then tried to get the control room to cut their mics and the audience mics to no avail.

    “Everybody’s mics are on. I think I heard that, too. That’s okay. We had a mic issue in the back,” Todd complained.

    After Todd finished the question, the off-camera hot microphone talk continued, however, prompting a perplexed Maddow to ask “What’s happening?!”
    https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/watch-msnbc-debate-melts-down-over-hot-mic-disaster/

    They had ONE job!!

    heheheheheheheheheheehehehehehe

    Dumbocrats.. Can they do ANYTHING right?? :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Adam Brandon: Either 72 percent of Americans are wrong or 10 Dem 2020 hopefuls are -- My money is on the Dems

    The moderators of Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate opened up with a simple statistic -- 72 percent of Americans believe the economy is going well.

    For the next few minutes, the candidates tried as hard as possible to explain exactly why 72 percent of Americans are wrong.

    The tone deafness from the Democratic field was a clear as Beto O’Rourke’s pre-rehearsed Spanish soundbites.

    Americans know better, and they know prosperity when they see it.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-brandon-democratic-debate-economy-72-percent-2020

    No one has ever gotten poor betting on the stoopidity of Trump/America haters..

    :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If we're honest with ourselves and we look hard at ourselves, I think a lot of people agree with me. I also think when you can label somebody a socialist, 57 percent of this country thinks that word is un-American. I'm not saying it's fair. When he [Trump] can blanket Elizabeth Warren as a socialist and he's onstage with her, the Democrats lose."
    -Donny Deutsch, MSNBC

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz can take heart...

    Joe Biden Is Hollywood Headliner At Democratic Debates, But Elizabeth Warren Is One To Watch

    EXCLUSIVE: “It’s Joe Biden’s to lose, Elizabeth Warren’s to win and everybody else is to try to get noticed,” a top Hollywood donor bluntly says of the two-night Democratic debate that kicks off tonight on NBC.

    “Look, this isn’t Democrats Got Talent, but it kind of is,” the executive added of the field that features the former VP, the Massachusetts senator and 18 other Oval Office hopefuls taking the stage in two groups tonight and Thursday in Miami. “People are watching to see who stands out and who they will be writing checks to.”

    Notes another longtime Tinseltown donor: “Warren has a great advantage being on the first night. She can turn this into her town hall and pressure Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg to have to respond to her on Thursday.”
    https://deadline.com/2019/06/democratic-debate-hollywood-favorites-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-nbc-1202638231/

    Biden has no small ally in Hollywood...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone gonna watch the SCOTUS LIVE of the big decisions today?? :D

    I'll be there...

    My prediction:

    SCOTUS will rule that the citizen question can be included in the census...

    The Gerrymandering case will be decided in favor of Democrats..

    That's my take...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I predicted....

    Warren, and Progressivism, Own the Debate's First Night
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/27/warren_and_progressivism_own_the_debates_first_night_140660.html

    Party purity, not electability, will be the deciding factor for the Democrat Party primary...

    To be fair, we haven't heard Biden debate this cycle yet...

    But I doubt he is going to be able to overcome the totality of the DEMOCRAT forces against him...

    I could be wrong.. But it's looking more and more like I am not..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    First Debate Proved The Democratic Party Has Gone ¡Loco!

    And Joe Biden might be the only one left to save it.

    Joe Biden won the first Democratic Party primary debate, y ni siquiera tuvo que aparecer.

    Now, at his present political trajectory, Biden may end up promising to perform late-term abortions on transgendered Guatemalan migrants with his bare hands by the time the debate rolls around on Wednesday. But really, all the former vice president needs to do to maintain his lead position is not turn completely insane.

    Because while Sen. Cory Booker might believe that most Americans agree with the policy objectives of the Democratic Party, this is not a Democratic Party that anyone would recognize ten, or even four, years ago.

    It unlikely, for example, that most Americans believe the United States should be an effectively borderless nation. Yet a whole bunch of Democrats on the debate stage this Wednesday came awfully close to proposing that absolutely no person be stopped from entering the United States — outside drug and sex “traffickers” (although one wonders how they propose we weed them out).
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/first-debate-proved-democratic-party-gone-loco/

    The 1st debate provided a perfect example of how far Left the Democrat Party has lurched...

    No patriotic American in their right mind would vote for ANY Democrat Candidate, sans one...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    First Democratic debate was a good night — for Team Trump

    Section 1325! Section 1325! For a few crucial minutes in the middle of the first Democratic presidential debate, Julián Castro (polling average: 0.8 percent) took over the proceedings by challenging his fellow candidates to endorse the repeal of Section 1325 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

    What’s it about? Don’t ask.

    He yelled at Beto O’Rourke about it and expressed his deep disappointment that O’Rourke wasn’t joining him in supporting the repeal of Section 1325.

    O’Rourke is at 3.3 percent in the Real Clear Politics polling average, so you can see why Castro thought it was so important to nail him. If he really cuts into Beto’s support, Castro might rise to a whole 1.5 percent.

    Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren — poll average 12.8 percent — could barely get a word in edgewise.

    Later, Tulsi Gabbard (0.8 percent) got into a kerfuffle with Tim Ryan (0.6 percent) on whether we should even have gone into Afghanistan in the first place. Gabbard, who seemed to be bidding for the goth vote with her dramatic shock of gray hair, said the Taliban didn’t attack us, al Qaeda did. Ryan’s expression was like Mugatu in “Zoolander” asking if he’d been taking crazy pills.

    They weren’t just immigration doves. They were immigration antinomians, who disapprove of the enforcement of the laws passed laboriously through our democratic process. At one point, the mostly silent Warren declared that we “must make this Congress reflect the will of the people” — as though it can’t possibly have been doing so because the policies it enacted or refused to enact did not comport with her views.

    All in all, Democrats spent far more time talking about how they would help illegal immigrants than about how they would help the voters they most need to win over — the white working-class Obama voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2016.

    Only Tim Ryan, a congressman from Ohio, centered his efforts through the night on the “forgotten” American in the white working class, and he didn’t do a very good job of it.

    If I were Brad Parscale, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, I would be dancing a jig — because if this is the way the Democrats and the media want to discuss the economy and immigration, he is going to have a field day with the quotes they will generate from now until the election.
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/27/first-democratic-debate-was-a-good-night-for-team-trump/

    hehehehe

    If the Kiddie Table is any indication President Trump is going to have a cake walk..

    The ONLY candidate who MIGHT give President Trump a run for his money (of which the GOP has ten times as much as the Dims) is the ONE candidate that Democrats (including Spartacus/Smollet/Booker.. ESPECIALLY Spartacus/Smollet/Booker) want to destroy...

    Welcome to The Democrat Party Circular Firing Squad. Round #1..

    It's gonna be a fun primary.. For Trump/America supporters... :D

  25. [25] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Summary of the 1st Dem debate (and also the 2nd).

    "We need to transfer a great many more resources from the more productive to the less productive!"

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Summary of the 1st Dem debate (and also the 2nd).

    "We need to transfer a great many more resources from the more productive to the less productive!"

    Succinct, to the point and dead on ballz accurate...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We need to transfer a great many more resources from the more productive to the less productive!"

    As proven by Occasional Cotex's New Green Deal....

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and team attempt damage control after a fumbled Green New Deal rollout that included a line about paying Americans 'unwilling to work'
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2

    While they scrambled to delete the line from the official document, you can bet it is still part of the deal...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    VOX even makes the case that paying those UNWILLING to work is no problem... :eyeroll:

    The case for helping the “unwilling to work”
    A poorly chosen phrase hides a valuable idea: Work isn’t everything.

    https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2019/2/20/18233515/unwilling-to-work-jobs-employment-aoc-green-new-deal

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. Here we go.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have our first opinion, and it is Mitchell v. Wisconsin, from Alito.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision is vacated and remanded.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was the challenge to a blood test of an unconscious drunk driving suspect.

    The court holds that the exigent-circumstances rule "almost always permits a blood test without a warrant."

    "When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk-driving laws depends upon the administration of a blood test.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    When a driver is unconscious, Alito concludes, "the general rule is that a warrant is not needed."

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chalk up a win for the good guys...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roberts, Breyer, and Kavanaugh join Alito's opinion; Thomas concurs in the judgment.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dissent Kagan Ginsburg Gorsch Sotomayer

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause. Amy will have our analysis:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf

    The court holds that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The court's ruling means that courts will not have a role to play in reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure what that means.. I am typing it all in, then I'll think about it.. :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a 5-4 decision with all the liberals dissenting.

    So, that means it must be a good thing.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice Kagan begins her dissent with this: "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."

    The court holds that none of the proposed "tests" for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernible and manageable -- e.g., there's not a good test to use to decide them.

    From the end of the majority opinion: "No one can accuse this Court of having a crabbed view of the reach of its competence. But we have no commission to allocate political power and influence in the absence of a constitutional directive or legal standards to guide us in the exercise of such authority."

    The holding here is that such claims are non-justiciable -- that they are not of the kind that courts can decide. That admits of very few factual exceptions, if any. Essentially, if your claim sounds in partisan gerrymandering, the courts cannot accept it.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    In dissent, Justice Kagan emphasizes the importance of the issue: "the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people."

    That is strong language, particularly from Justice Kagan.

    Kagan: "With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."

    Toward the end of the opinion, Roberts acknowledges that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust." But that does not mean, he says, that "the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Chief's opinion does distinguish other kinds of voting-related / districting claims that sound in Equal Protection principles. But there is not a lot of room left here for anything that sounds like political rather than racial discrimination.

    Roberts says the states can pass laws to deal with partisan gerrymandering, and so can Congress.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice Kagan, calling out the majority: "I think it important to underscore that fact: The majority disputes none of what I have said (or will say) about how gerrymanders undermine democracy. Indeed, the majority concedes (really, how could it not?) that gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles.” "

    But, he points out, the states are addressing the issue, and Congress has the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering. "We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open."

    The court sends both the Maryland case and the North Carolina case back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK I guess I was wrong on the Gerrymander case. It's a win for the country...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What the appellees and dissent seek," Roberts write, "is an unprecedented expansion of judicial power."

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Kagan is reading from her dissent so it might be a bit before the next decision is read...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justice Kagan's closing paragraph: "Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent. "

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    We have the census case.

    The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and sent back to the district court.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:
  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    The majority upholds the district court's remand to the agency for further explanation of its decision.

    The partial concurrence from Justice Thomas agrees with the majority that the decision is not necessarily arbitrary and capricious, and then disagrees with the majority about remanding on the view that the justification the Secretary offered for the question was pretextual. Justice Breyer's partial concurrence is the opposite: It agrees about the pretext, but would also find the justifications that were offered arbitrary and capricious.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Chief Justice explains that, although it is fine when an agency has stated and unstated reasons for a decision -- and fine with a new administration comes in with policy preferences -- here, the only stated reason for the decision to add the citizenship question seems contrived.

    From the majority opinion: "we cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.... If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition."

    More for the end of the majority opinion: "We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction."

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Court says that the secretary's decision to reinstate the citizenship question was reasonable and reasonably explained, "particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census," but on the other hand it says that it shares "the District Court's conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ's request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the" Voting Rights Act. "In these unusual circumstances," the court says, "the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition."

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, basically the SCOTUS is saying that a citzenship question on the census is reasonable.. The department just needs to come up with a better explanation..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question. So the remand may prove to be a temporary, and limited, victory.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thomas concurs in part and dissents in part, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Says "our only role in this case is to decide whether the Secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The Court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry."

    Justice Alito expresses the view that courts have no business "stick[ing] its nose into the question whether it is good polity to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were is only reasons or his real reasons."

    Here's how I would characterize the bottom line on the census: The Court has rejected the proposition that it is impossible for Commerce to add a citizenship question, but it has also held that it does not believe the voting-rights related justification that Commerce offered. That means Commerce could get another chance to justify its decision. Whether it has the time to do that is a practical question, not a legal one.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    In rulings that favor the Government, the Court holds: (1) the Enumeration clause permits a citizenship question; (2) the Secretary's decision is reviewable under the APA; (3) adding the citizenship question was supported by substantial evidence; (4) adding the question did not violate the two provisions of the Census Act New York has cited.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, looks like it's a win for the country on both the gerrymandering case and the census citizenship case..

    Kewl... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like that's it for the SCOTUS decisions today..

    Back to work for me :D

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    BIG LOSS FOR TRUMP

    Just a question to enforce the voting rights act? SCOTUS ain't buying the Trump administration's bullshit... finally considering the animus of the Trump administration in a 5-4 ruling.

    The SCOTUS finds the Trump administration's reason to add the citizenship question "contrived" and not "reasonable." Yes, SCOTUS, they are liars of the highest order.

    Not very often do you see a SCOTUS bitchslap like that. :)

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    57

    So, looks like it's a win for the country on both the gerrymandering case and the census citizenship case..
    Kewl... :D

    As I have said many times. You are hands down and without question the poster who posts the most utter nonsensical and outright wrong information.

    You are a veritable font of misinformation. :)

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    A veritable fount of misinformation.

    Edit feature! ;)

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    [25] C. R. Stucki

    "Summary of the 1st Dem debate (and also the 2nd).

    "We need to transfer a great many more resources from the more productive to the less productive!""

    A much more ACCURATE read would be:

    "We need to stop transferring resources from those that actually work to create wealth at the bottom, to those one percent at the top who do nothing to earn the wealth they accumulate through an unlevel playing field that is already too heavily tilted in their favor."

    That's what in fact prompted BOTH Sanders AND TRUMP voters in the first place.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    In rulings that favor the Government, the Court holds: (1) the Enumeration clause permits a citizenship question; (2) the Secretary's decision is reviewable under the APA; (3) adding the citizenship question was supported by substantial evidence; (4) adding the question did not violate the two provisions of the Census Act New York has cited.

    Huge win for President Trump and the country as a whole..

    The citizenship question WILL be on the 2020 census.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    53

    So, basically the SCOTUS is saying that a citzenship question on the census is reasonable.. The department just needs to come up with a better explanation..

    They don't have a "better explanation," and Secretary Ross committed perjury regarding said explanation. How did you get "reasonable" out of the SCOTUS decision describing it as "contrived" and "not reasonable" and their decision not to allow it on those grounds unless a reasonable explanation is provided by the Trump administration?

    The SCOTUS determined that the Trump administration's bullshit that they needed this census question in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act after the GOP spending decades and decades doing everything they could to spay and neuter said Voting Rights Act just wasn't going to fly past the SCOTUS wherein they attempted to gut it.

    That Trump administration and Wilbur Ross perjury was kind of obvious. Can't somebody fabricate a better reason?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the real reason for the census question being "the Trump administration wishes to create an undercount of American citizens by making them afraid to answer the census question for fear of being targeted by ICE is not going to suffice either.

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    63

    Huge win for President Trump and the country as a whole..

    The citizenship question WILL be on the 2020 census.. :D

    Don't hold your Cheeto breath, sunshine. :)

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically, SCOTUS ruled that, while the explanation provided was capricious, SCOTUS found that the department is not required to give an explanation..

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question. So the remand may prove to be a temporary, and limited, victory

    A TEMPORARY and LIMITED "victory"...

  67. [67] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John M [62]

    I'm well aware that the people who earn their living doing physical work invariably feel they're underpaid, and that the entrepreneurs and the mgrs are overpaid, after all, I was one of the "underpaid' most of my life.

    But I invariably have to point out that the folks doing the physical work who feel their employer is cheating/robbing, etc them, have an OBLIGATION to offer their time and talent to other employers, OR to go into business for themselves.

    If that improves their financial situation, more power to them. If it DOESN'T, then that indicates that they were likely NOT being underpaid/cheated/robbed, whatever, right?

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I invariably have to point out that the folks doing the physical work who feel their employer is cheating/robbing, etc them, have an OBLIGATION to offer their time and talent to other employers, OR to go into business for themselves.

    If that improves their financial situation, more power to them. If it DOESN'T, then that indicates that they were likely NOT being underpaid/cheated/robbed, whatever, right?

    Exactly...

    The door is always open for someone who feels under-appreciated or under-valued to go into business for themselves and PROVE their worth...

    Basically Democrats want to reward sloth and whiney excuse making..

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy. Yet viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court shares the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot adequately be explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA. Several points, taken together, reveal a significant mismatch between the Secretary’s decision and the rationale he provided. The record shows that he began taking steps to reinstate the question a week into his tenure, but gives no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement. His director of policy attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Review before turning to the VRA rationale and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. For its part, DOJ’s actions suggest that it was more interested in helping the Commerce Department than in securing the data. Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision. Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. The explanation provided here was more of a distraction. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744. Pp. 23–28.

    351 F. Supp. 3d 502, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

    In case you don't recognize it, that is the SCOTUS recognizing the Trump administration's lies and animus. Ouch. :)

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question. So the remand may prove to be a temporary, and limited, victory

    A TEMPORARY and LIMITED "victory"...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, the SCOTUS hands President Trump and this country an 'eh' win on the Census and a MAJOR win on Gerrymandering..

    All in all, a great day! :D

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    66

    Basically, SCOTUS ruled that, while the explanation provided was capricious, SCOTUS found that the department is not required to give an explanation..

    Wrong! Completely, totally, and utterly wrong.

    How are you getting this ass backwards? Read the actual decision and not the parts of opinions that are outside the SCOTUS decision.

    There is a "reasoned explanation requirement." I'd love to hear a better lie from the Trump administration that will satisfy the reasoned explanation requirement that will allow that question on the 2020 census.

    They have to have a reason that isn't considered bullshit by the SCOTUS. I'll even give the lying scumbags props if they can come up with a better lie than the Voting Rights Act in order to get the citizenship question on the 2020 census.

    Get busy lying, Trumpers! Bad luck. :)

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    [9] CW: What did I think of DeBlasio interrupting?

    I didn't mind it a bit. Overall I liked the give and take and passion. I liked the range of views expressed although I didn't agree with all of them by any means. DeBlasio is unknown to most Americans so he needed to stick out and he did.

    Delaney was mildly annoying and while I don't think Ryan has a shot in hell, I didn't find him as absurd as did many commenters online. He represents the next district over from mine and he certainly embodies a pov many people have. Why they have it (FOX News/rw propaganda) and what to do about it are thorny questions. Many of those folks blew it by voting for Blotus only to be screwed so my sympathy is limited -- but it's not zero.

    Ohio has suffered under a bunch of republicans for several cycles (terrible gerrymandering and fuck you John Roberts) and they are useless and destructive. What we need desperately here are people NOT mired in the past and NOT whacked out religious nuts - true everywhere. But that's for another day.

    I agree with the near consensus that Liz Warren did well - didn't blow the roof off but held her position - that Castro got himself noticed in a big way and could be a good complement to her - ditto Booker. DeBlasio forced many to register his existence. Beto somehow didn't quite cut it. It's weird with him. He has the physical presence and a deep, compelling voice, strong convictions & intelligence - yet he somehow seems "not ready". I wish he'd decided to challenge Cornyn in TX instead of running for potus. Amy Klobucher made me want her to be the next Secy of State - a good outlet for her "let's work together" ethos. Gov. Inslee needed more time to make an impression. Tulsi Gabbard has baggage that makes me disinclined to support her but she came across as not-an-idiot.

    Still - some winnowing needs to happen. Meanwhile, looking forward to tonight.

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    71

    So, the SCOTUS hands President Trump and this country an 'eh' win on the Census and a MAJOR win on Gerrymandering..

    The Trump administration lost big today on the census question. As I said, I will give them props if they can come up with a good lie on that considering the circumstances and evidence that has newly surfaced. The lie that they're attempting to represent minorities is laughable after their decades of screwing them out of their vote in spectacular fashion.

    Also, you do realize that the Democratic Party flipped seven governorships, six state legislative chambers, and more than 300 state House and Senate seats on election night in 2018, right? Which means when the gerrymandering continues, it'll be in the other direction. Hardly a victory for the GOP under the facts such as they are.

    All in all, a great day! :D

    *laughs* :)

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ohio has suffered under a bunch of republicans for several cycles (terrible gerrymandering and fuck you John Roberts)

    Heh :D

    Anything that pisses Paula enough to start swearing, you KNOW it's a good thing for President Trump and the country... :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what I see happening..

    The court has made it clear that it is within the Commerce Dept's purview to add the citizenship question to the census.. The court just objected to the explanation..

    The Com Dept will simply refine the explanation and then add the question to the census, since the SCOTUS has affirmed that A> it's within the Dept's purview to do so and B> the objections of has no merit...

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question.

    So, the agency refines the explanation, adds the question and viola... 2020 Census complete with citizenship question...

    Winning!! :D

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Com Dept will simply refine the explanation and then add the question to the census, since the SCOTUS has affirmed that A> it's within the Dept's purview to do so and B> the objections of has no merit...

    That should read:

    The Com Dept will simply refine the explanation and then add the question to the census, since the SCOTUS has affirmed that A> it's within the Dept's purview to do so and B> the objections of NEW YORK has no merit...

    My bust..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden’s Haunted Legacy in Iraq

    Biden’s long and contentious record in the country opens a window onto his foreign policy—and an identity crisis in the Democratic Party. This is the definitive history.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/joe-bidens-iraq-decisions-haunt-him-2020/592669/

    This is why Joe Biden won't be the Dem nominee...

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    76

    The court has made it clear that it is within the Commerce Dept's purview to add the citizenship question to the census.. The court just objected to the explanation..

    But that's not what you said before, is it? You misinformed Weigantia that the SCOTUS said they didn't need an explanation:

    Basically, SCOTUS ruled that, while the explanation provided was capricious, SCOTUS found that the department is not required to give an explanation..

    Actually, you're all over the map on this one.

    The Com Dept will simply refine the explanation and then add the question to the census, since the SCOTUS has affirmed that A> it's within the Dept's purview to do so and B> the objections of has no merit...

    Refine the explanation!? Seriously? The old fart perjured himself already. The real reason they want the question on there is to cheat minorities out of representation, which will also cheat those states out of federal funding and shift the burden to the taxpayers of those states, but I digress.

    The Commerce Department will now invent an acceptable lie that isn't the real reason for the census question, and everyone will know it's a lie. The GOP is okay with that because they're just fine with cheating "we the people" out of our representation. That is sickening!

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question.

    The SCOTUS sends the case back to the lower Court. Please stop posting bullshit! :)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    First, the very bad day for the left. For years, the institutional left has been trying to strip state legislatures of power and give it to federal courts. They wanted federal judges to have the power to say that a given legislative map helped one political party too much. For example, if a state voted 52 percent to 48 percent, then state and congressional legislative lines should apportion power in roughly the same percentages. If they didn't, federal courts should get to decide the legislative lines.

    Giving federal courts the power to rule on partisan imbalances in legislative lines has been a top priority of Democrats and leftist process hounds for years. Why? Because the vast majority of America, when considered state by state, leans right and elects Republicans to majorities in state legislatures. They wanted federal judges in those states to blunt the power of state legislatures.

    Today the Supreme Court drove a final stake through the heart of partisan gerrymandering cases. They are done, dead, RIP. Consider this their obituary.

    The Court ruled that these are political questions, that the Constitution vests power in state legislatures to draw their own lines and to set the rules of line drawing. Power should reside with the people, not federal courts with life tenure.

    That makes it a very, very bad day for funders who had poured millions of dollars into the left's efforts to have federal courts erode decisions made by Republican state legislatures.

    The Liberals and and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day..... :D

    When a state votes a majority to the Republicans, then it stands to reason that said voted for Republicans will draw the lines as the voters want them to...

    As has been pointed out, Democrats do the EXACT same thing..

    But, since this country leans Center Right, the Republicans do it more and better..

    Because THAT is why they are voted into office..

    Dumbocrats wanted the Federal Courts to step in because Dumbocrats simply can't win elections...

    And the SCOTUS gave a big, a mighty... a HUGE FRAK YOU!!! to Dumbocrats..

    Sucks to be Left.. :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Supreme Court’s Partisan Gerrymandering Ruling Is a Body Blow to Our Democracy
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-supreme-courts-partisan-gerrymandering-rucho-common-cause.html

    As long as the Democrats are against it.. You KNOW it's good for Americans and America...

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT FEATURE!

    Michale
    76

    The court has made it clear that it is within the Commerce Dept's purview to add the citizenship question to the census.. The court just objected to the explanation..

    But that's not what you said before, is it? You misinformed Weigantia that the SCOTUS said they didn't need an explanation:

    Basically, SCOTUS ruled that, while the explanation provided was capricious, SCOTUS found that the department is not required to give an explanation..

    Actually, you're all over the map on this one.

    The Com Dept will simply refine the explanation and then add the question to the census, since the SCOTUS has affirmed that A> it's within the Dept's purview to do so and B> the objections of has no merit...

    Refine the explanation!? Seriously? The old fart perjured himself already. The real reason they want the question on there is to cheat minorities out of representation, which will also cheat those states out of federal funding and shift the burden to the taxpayers of those states, but I digress.

    The Commerce Department will now invent an "acceptable lie" after the fact that quite obviously isn't the real reason for the census question, and everyone will know it's a lie. The GOP and their ilk are okay with that because they're just fine with cheating "we the people" out of our representation. That is sickening!

    Although the Court sends the case back to the agency, it largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency's power to include a citizenship question.

    The SCOTUS sends the case back to the lower Court. Please stop posting bullshit! :)

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    81

    As long as the Democrats are against it.. You KNOW it's good for Americans and America...

    When Florida flips blue and the Democrats gerrymander the shit out of it, I'll be around to remind you how much you loved this SCOTUS decision. :)

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wow. Good thing that Michale doesn't teach Constitutional Law.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow. Good thing that Michale doesn't teach Constitutional Law.

    Of course I don't..

    But that's a small price to pay to see Dumbocrats get their asses kicked up one side and down the other..

    Howdya like the SCOTUS Gerrymander decision?? :D

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paulie Manafort was under the mistaken impression that his run-in with lady justice was over and that all he needed to do was await a Trump pardon. However, right now, Paulie is in New York and getting his ass arraigned again so that no federal pardon from his co-conspirator currently living in the White House will keep his criminal ass out of jail where it belongs.

    If ya'all would stop worshiping Benedict Donald and sucking on the orange goop and take a breath and a glance every now and then at the moving goalposts of the Red team, perhaps you won't have goop all over your face when the game nears the 2-minute warning... because when people think the game is nearly over, it'll just be getting started... and in the end, some of the Red team is going to jail.

    These little town blues are melting away
    I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
    A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
    It's up to you, New York, New York. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/08/04/ftp448/#comment-107388

    Of course, many of us here in Weigantia saw this coming in August 2017. Me, Balthy, TS, Neil, sorry if I missed anyone... but you know who you are. :)

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar

    I will love the SCOTUS gerrymander decision when Florida flips and Michale's vote is a waste of time.

    I will enjoy telling him how excited he was the day the SCOTUS rendered his vote utterly useless. :)

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court decides federal judges cannot block gerrymandering
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html

    Bad BAD VERY BAD Day for Democrats.. :D

    As long as Democrats continue to lose State Elections, they are going to have a problem.. :D

    And THAT is good for the country..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what's even more funny is that, when RBG retires, or is retired, then it will be a 6-3 RIGHT WING SCOTUS... :D

    Expect more bad, bad VERY bad days for Democrats.. :D

  90. [90] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The SCOTUS gerrymander decision is a perfect example of right-wing jurisprudence: when in doubt, punt.

    In this case, back to the legislatures.

    One gets the feeling that the judges just don't feel up to the task. Signs of impending retirements?

    Since this case was only about these states, and NOT about the whole issue, we'll see it again in four or five years from now, when younger judges might have the energy to do it..

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic White House hopefuls decry court ruling on gerrymandering, vow to counter it
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-white-house-hopefuls-decry-court-ruling-on-gerrymandering-vow-to-counter-it/2019/06/27/f0ee383e-98f8-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html?utm_term=.06bea78c9b49

    Dumbocrat wannabe POTUS are already whining and crying about the YUUGGE Win for President Trump..

    What are they gonna do about it?? They whined and cried about CITIZENS UNITED and yet, CU is still the law of the land...

    Democratic presidential candidates expressed outrage Thursday at the Supreme Court’s ruling on partisan gerrymandering, vowing to make it an issue in next year’s election and to take actions to counter it if they make it to the White House.

    In a 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservatives decided that federal courts do not have a role to play in determining whether gerrymandered districts are too extreme, giving a dominant political party in a state great leeway to draw electoral maps to its benefit.

    While both parties take advantage of drawing electoral districts when they have control in a state, the most recent beneficiaries have been Republicans. The GOP is in control of both the governorship and legislature in 22 states, compared to 14 for Democrats.

    All the Dumbocrats have to do is start winning State Elections. But they can't, so they wanted the SCOTUS to step in and help them...

    SCOTUS reply??

    "Yer on yer own, bitches!!"

    :D

    "What a great day for American, isn't it?"
    -Agent J, MEN IN BLACK III

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since this case was only about these states, and NOT about the whole issue, we'll see it again in four or five years from now, when younger judges might have the energy to do it..

    Only if Dumbocrats are stupid enough to bring it again..

    What part of FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN THIS POLITICAL DECISION is unclear to you...

    One gets the feeling that the judges just don't feel up to the task. Signs of impending retirements?

    Yep.. You know RBG is on her way out.. The other 3 liberals are not far behind..

    By the time President Trump leaves office in 2024, we could realistically have a 7-2 Conservative SCOTUS.. :D

    Won't that be a hoot :D

    I may not be a Constitutional Law Professor, but I can understand plain english..

    Apparently, you are not that capable...

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Expect more bad, bad VERY bad days for Democrats

    What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. Trust me, one turn on the old screw, and you'll be crying for relief from gerrymandering laws yourself.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    “How do you decide where the line is between acceptable partisanship and too much partisanship? At some point, it should occur to you that what you’ve been asked to do is not judging at all. Challengers from North Carolina and Maryland asked for an unprecedented expansion of judicial power that would have broad consequences."
    -Chief Justice Roberts

    Ya'all lost.. Man up... Take your lumps..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. Trust me, one turn on the old screw, and you'll be crying for relief from gerrymandering laws yourself.

    Yea..

    And Trump is going to lose to Hillary Clinton..

    Dumbocrats will take the Senate in 2018...

    After the Mueller report, President Trump will be frog marched from the oval office..

    You have been WRONG every time, Balthy...

    You lost.. AGAIN...

    Accept it...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the past decade, Democrats have been the bigger losers in gerrymandering fights. Republicans seized power in many states in the 2010 midterm elections, giving them control over the redistricting process. Democrats are at a disadvantage entering the 2020 elections, which will determine who draws the next decade's state and congressional lines in most states.

    :D

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You seem to have little appreciation of just how much swing there is in this country, or of just how imperiled the Republicans are.

    Why, in just a few elections, the right wing could be entirely banished from politics, save for a few strongholds in the South. You've got very little support from new generations, and your old folk are dying off at an alarming rate.

    So enjoy your pyrrhic victory. It won't last.

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And don't repeat the old trope about how wrong we were in 2016. One election doesn't make a trend.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    So enjoy your pyrrhic victory. It won't last.

    Yea..

    And Trump is going to lose to Hillary Clinton..

    Dumbocrats will take the Senate in 2018...

    After the Mueller report, President Trump will be frog marched from the oval office..

    I would love to stay here and rub it in some more.. No, really.. I would..

    But it's poker night..

    Tell ya what.. I'll pick up gloating in the morning.. K?? :D

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    You're gloating over what? Is Fox News disinformation making it out like a win-win day, and you fell for it? *laughs*

    Let's review your predictions from earlier

    [21]

    Michale wrote:

    Anyone gonna watch the SCOTUS LIVE of the big decisions today?? :D

    I'll be there...

    My prediction:

    SCOTUS will rule that the citizen question can be included in the census...

    The Gerrymandering case will be decided in favor of Democrats..

    That's my take...

    So you were (1) WRONG and (2) WRONG! Wrong on both of your predictions.

    Balthy is right about this, you know: It must really suck when the 2016 election is basically all you've got!!! Heh. :D

  101. [101] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    90

    The SCOTUS gerrymander decision is a perfect example of right-wing jurisprudence: when in doubt, punt.

    Yep. Pathetic.

    Since this case was only about these states, and NOT about the whole issue, we'll see it again in four or five years from now, when younger judges might have the energy to do it..

    Well, now you've gone and ruined it for him by stating the facts! Like yesterday when he announced that the SCOTUS had ruled that "fetal remains" were "human remains" and had to all be buried now because they're people... when it was basically only a decision that punted on overturning Roe v. Wade and simply allowed the enforcement of disposal of fetal remains in only one state, Indiana.

    It would serve us all well if he would stop reporting the SCOTUS decisions since he sucks bigly at doing it. :)

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    99

    Dumbocrats will take the Sennate in 2018...

    Liar. No one here claimed that or if they did I don't remember anyone here claiming that. In fact, we had several conversations saying that it would be dang near impossible based on the fact that Democrats were defending 24 seats while Republicans were only having to defend 9 seats in the 2018 midterms.

    Nice try, Michale, but a shitty swing and a total miss. :)

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [25]:

    Summary of the 1st Dem debate (and also the 2nd).

    "We need to transfer a great many more resources from the more productive to the less productive!"

    You enjoying the free money and healthcare the Government is providing you?

    Want to give it up so somebody more productive, such as myself, doesn't have to pay for you?

    And what was your point again?

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    Another terrific profile of Liz Warren:

    There's a passage - when Harry Reid/Obama admin was fighting to get approval for the CPFB and almost gave up:

    "That May, in an interview with the Huffington Post’s Shahien Nasiripour, Warren put it in simpler terms: No more compromises. “My first choice is a strong consumer agency,” she said. “My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.”

    She got her first choice."

    That should be the Dem Battle Cry: Fight to win, and if we lose, make sure there's plenty of GOP blood and teeth on the floor.

    "https://theintercept.com/2019/06/27/elizabeth-warren-profile/

  105. [105] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Just for everyone's info...

    Just posted my first debate night review column, so check it out to see what I thought.

    :-)

    Onward to Night Two!

    -CW

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, all in all, an awesome day..

    Dumbocrats were put in their place on gerrymandering.. The citizenship question WILL be on the census..

    And I cleaned up at poker.. :D It's really fun to lay down "2 pair" which is actually 4 of a kind.. TWICE :D heh

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gerrymandering Is an American Political Tradition

    Maybe I’m in the minority, but I’m glad partisan gerrymandering survived at the Supreme Court. I don’t much like the practice, but I’ve made my peace with the notion that my likes and dislikes are not the correct guide to constitutional interpretation.
    https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/supreme-court-gerrymandering-case-upholds-a-political-tradition

    Democrats got royally scroo'ed..

    They whined and cried hysterically because the keep losing State elections and begged to SCOTUS to save their sorry asses...

    But the SCOTUS said in no uncertain terms, "Elections have consequences, bitches!!"

    "You can't always get what you want...
    But if you try real hard...
    You just might find...
    You get what ya need.."

    -ROLLING STONES

    :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    As Bad as Citizens United

    The Court just stacked the deck in favor of parties over voters—and laid the groundwork for yet more polarization.

    Today’s Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution doesn’t bar even extreme partisan gerrymandering is the worst election-related decision since Citizens United, which in 2010 opened the floodgates for corporate money in campaigns. The Court just stacked the deck in favor of parties over voters—and laid the groundwork for yet more polarization.

    Most congressional districts are not competitive. Right now, according to The Cook Political Report, of the 435 districts in the House, only 21 are true “toss-ups,” whereas 344 are considered safe seats. (The rest lean in one direction or the other.) In this climate, electoral survival means aligning with base voters to protect your flank, left or right. Compromise isn’t a virtue; it’s an invitation to a primary.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/gerrymandering-decision-worst-long-time/592843/

    Interesting to note that this author, as I did, compared the SCOTUS Gerrymander ruling to the Citizens United ruling..

    Like CU, whiney crying Democrats will bitch and moan about the ruling, but use it to their advantage where ever and when ever possible.

    The GOOD news for the country is that Democrats really have a hard time winning state elections, so the harm to the country will be mitigated...

    Let's give a cheer for the Supreme Court Of The United States..

    The give full authority for the Commerce Dept to put the citizenship question on the census and totally put the whiney bitchy Dumbocrats in their place on the gerrymander issue..

    Is this a great country or what!!?? :D

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden got demolished

    When one candidate enjoys an enormous lead in the polls in a field of two dozen, he's bound to be a target on the debate stage — the one person everyone has an incentive to take down a peg. And so it was that in Miami on Thursday night, in the second half of the first Democratic debate, former vice president Joe Biden became a punching bag.

    It started with Rep. Eric Swalwell taking a dig at the 76-year-old Biden's age by calling on him to "pass the torch" to a younger generation. Then Sen. Michael Bennet hit Biden for bragging about his role in striking a budget deal with Mitch McConnell in 2011. Bennet called it a "complete victory for the Tea Party," a "great deal" for McConnell, and the key to Republicans permanently extending tax cuts passed during the administration of George W. Bush.

    But most stunning of all was the extended clash between Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris over Biden's recent remarks harking back to the good old days of senatorial deal-making with segregationists — an exchange that quickly evolved, at Harris' direction, into an argument about Biden's opposition to bussing during the 1970s. Biden's defense was reasonable — he had no objection to states and localities choosing to integrate schools by bussing students between urban and suburban school districts but merely opposed federally mandated bussing by the Department of Education. It didn't matter. Harris came off as clear, passionate, and personally invested in the issue. (A child of a Tamil Indian mother and Jamaican father, Harris was bussed to school as a child in Berkeley, Calif.) Biden looked and sounded defensive, back on the ropes.

    It's how he looked and sounded all night long.
    https://theweek.com/articles/849877

    Sorry to say it Liz....

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the second night of the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, NBC moderators asked candidates whether they would support decriminalizing the act of illegally crossing the border into the United States — that is, reducing the seriousness and consequences of illegal entry to the level of a parking ticket.

    "Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation," said NBC's José Díaz-Balart.

    All 10 candidates — Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Gillibrand, Bennet, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Yang, Williamson — raised their hands in approval. That moment was perhaps the Democratic Party's most significant step yet toward embracing a policy of open borders.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-in-debates-democrats-move-toward-open-borders

    Democrats just lost the election..

    NO ONE who advocates Open Borders, which is what decriminalization of immigration crimes is, will EVER be elected President Of The United States...

    This is fact...

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    NO ONE who advocates Open Borders, which is what decriminalization of immigration crimes is, will EVER be elected President Of The United States...

    This is fact...

    No one is advocating for open borders, and it's not illegal to seek asylum in the United States.

    Also, you're an idiot who doesn't know history. Reagan was elected POTUS twice, and he frequently talked about cities with walls and tearing down walls. That is fact.

    The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the shining "city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important, because he was an early Pilgrim - an early "Freedom Man." He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat, and, like the other pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

    I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace - a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

    That's how I saw it, and see it still. How Stands the City?

    And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm.

    And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. ~ Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation

    Still great advice after all your years of ignorant misinformation:
    Crack a book, moron! :D

Comments for this article are closed.