Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
And nullification has brought great justice to this nation. It's a crime that it's a crime to inform juries of their rights.
notsureifserious.jpg
And nullification has brought great justice to this nation. It's a crime that it's a crime to inform juries of their rights.
So I assume APK is watching Citizen4 documentary tonight on HBO
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e2f1f52c3eb34caca7d74e5bf90f27f9/lawmaker-lavish-decor-billed-private-planes-concerts#
Among a litany of other items, Rep. Schock (R-IL) spent almost $2000 on tickets for him and some of his interns on a sold out Katy Perry concert.
I want to know which interns.
I want to know which interns.
"You can't say no when your boss invites you. Danced my butt off," one former intern posted on his Instagram account with a picture of Perry at her June 2014 show. PAC records show a $1,928 expense for the ticket service StubHub.com two months later, listing it only as a "PAC fundraising event."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233570-obama-is-litmus-test-for-gopTough questions about President Obamas religion and background are proving to be an early litmus test for likely GOP White House hopefuls.
In a major blow to Gov. Chris Christie, a New Jersey judge ruled on Monday that he violated state law when he declined to make the full payment into the states pension system for public employees last year and ordered him to find a way to fund it now.
...
It came on the eve of his annual budget proposal to the Legislature, which already presented him with the challenge of finding $2.9 billion to make next years pension payment. The challenge is steep, with the states economy lagging well behind its neighbors and the nations, the state surplus dried up, and the governor loath to raise taxes.
He needs to shut the fuck up, seriously.
Turtleface will have a vote on a standalone bill that strips the President of his executive powers re: immigration EO.
It was nice while it lasted I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if he changes Senate rules. Ever since Reid did they said they'd get their revenge. This is it probably.
Oh really?Continued diablos. That's an L for the GOP, they are going to strip the immigration stuff out seperateky to get a vote and broadcast their xenophobia without gaining anything.
The DHS is something Bush created. There is simply no way they're gonna cut funding for DHS in light of terrorism threats and ISIS.This was always going to happen. It happens every time Boehner tries this shit. The senate will pass a standalone bill, Boehner will cave, and democrats+sane republicans will pass it. The only question is whether Boehner will let the funding run out for a couple days or pass this bill before funding runs out.
This was always going to happen. It happens every time Boehner tries this shit. The senate will pass a standalone bill, Boehner will cave, and democrats+sane republicans will pass it. The only question is whether Boehner will let the funding run out for a couple days or pass this bill before funding runs out.
Honestly I don't think McConnell blinked. He knew this was a losing proposition weeks ago but played along; Boehner is in a weaker position with his caucus than McConnell, so he has to let them drive into a ditch before pulling them out again.The nice thing here is that McConnell blinked instead of Boehner. I think he'll take that W.
Honestly I don't think McConnell blinked. He knew this was a losing proposition weeks ago but played along; Boehner is in a weaker position with his caucus than McConnell, so he has to let them drive into a ditch before pulling them out again.
It makes more sense to fight Obama by slowly chipping away at regulations and the ACA through spending and omnibus bills.
Well, I don't mean a legal crime, since it's obviously not illegal, but it's a moral crime.notsureifserious.jpg
I bet you really liked The Fifth Estatelol I only have go so I might watch it later. I'll like to watch something on the topic and I just might knowing its done by people with a specific viewpoint.
I really liked we steal secrets.
I'm never sure if benji is seriously, but he's right though.notsureifserious.jpg
Well, I don't mean a legal crime, since it's obviously not illegal, but it's a moral crime.
Or were you wondering about the first claim.
You always get the "but white bigots will exclude killing of blacks" counter-example. And well, that happened anyway, so I don't see the point of the court (state, whatever) explicitly lying to the jury about their power/right to judge both the law and fact.I'm never sure if benji is seriously, but he's right though.
Sure, it had been abused too (though not as much as some of its detractors claim to be) but as whole, it was used more for good.
And while I do think the process has some problems, this is merely an extension of problems that already exists with the jury system.
Well, it's not "allowed" because the federal government gets the final say so. But the example Paul used (if you click through on the link posted) was changing marijuana laws. There State nullification is effectively a stalking horse for future federal policy hopefully.I thought he was noting that jury nullification (which is real) and the concept of a state using nullification to ignore federal law (which is afaik not real) were two totally different things.
Jury nullification and nullification as in the nullification crisis are two very different things.I thought he was noting that jury nullification (which is real) and the concept of a state using nullification to ignore federal law (which is afaik not real) were two totally different things.
That argument always smelled like concern trolling to me.You always get the "but white bigots will exclude killing of blacks" counter-example. And well, that happened anyway, so I don't see the point of the court (state, whatever) explicitly lying to the jury about their power/right to judge both the law and fact.
Oh man, don't get me started on that bullshit, it's also based on such shaky legal grounds.And arresting people for informing juries is worse.
I usually get struck because of my degrees I think. Never had the opportunity to say that I don't recognize the authority of the state to demand my services without negotiated compensation.
James O'Keefe
‏@JamesOKeefeIII
We have a story were going to release this coming week and I've never thought about this before but I am afraid for my life on this one.
#proud to be from Connecticut
Vermont is the highest, at 37.03%. Utah is, of course, the lowest.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.All I want is something hilarious!
Further, the NRCC is launching a marketing campaign with an Oscars theme to boost Republican support in some races. That campaign is outlined on a website, 2016donkeys.com. The website has several categories and nominees for each one, and the "winners" will be announced on the site during the Oscars broadcast Sunday.
Some of the categories include "The Brad Schneider: For most likely to be one-and-done," "The Carol Shea-Porter: For the most out-of-touch liberal record," and "The John Barrow: For the Most Two-Faced Politician."
The full list of 19 Democrats Republicans will target, according to the NRCC website: Arizona's Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema; California's John Garamendi, Ami Bera, Julia Brownley, Pete Aguilar, Raul Ruiz, and Scott Peters; Connecticut's Elizabeth Esty; Florida's Gwen Graham and Patrick Murphy; Illinois' Cheri Bustos; Minnesota's Collin Peterson and Rick Nolan; Nebraska's Brad Ashford; New Hampshire's Annie Kuster; New Mexico's Ben Ray Luján; and New York's Steve Israel and Sean Patrick Maloney.
The Brad Schneider
For Most Likely to Be One-and-Done
Pete Aguilar Brad Ashford
Gwen Graham
The Carol Shea-Porter
For the most out-of-touch liberal record
Ann Kirkpatrick Julia Brownley
Rick Nolan Raul Ruiz
The TimMailman Bishop
For delivering bad behavior and bad headlines
Annie Kuster Elizabeth Esty
Scott Peters John Garamendi
Sean Patrick Maloney
The John Barrow
For the Most Two-Faced Politician
Ami Bera Collin Peterson
Cheri Bustos
The BruceBailey
Most likely to run for Senate, lose, and leave an open House seat
Patrick Murphy Kyrsten Sinema
The Chris Van Hollen
The Honorary DCCC Chair Non-Achievement Award
Ben Ray Luján Steve Israel
The Arizona Constitution mandates that "by February 28 of each year that ends in one, an independent redistricting commission shall be established to provide for the redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts."[9] The state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments solicits and reviews applications from the public and nominates 25 candidates--ten Democrats, ten Republicans and five independents.[10] The Constitution also specifies that "within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee."[9] The leaders of the two largest parties in both houses of the legislature (in practice, the Senate and House Democratic and Republican leaders) select one candidate each to be commissioners. Of the four commissioners selected by the legislature, no more than two may be from the same party or from the same county.[9] Once the four partisan commissioners are set, they then select an independent chair from the list of candidates compiled by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. This fifth member is not subject to the county residency limit otherwise imposed, so in practice up to three members of the AIRC may be from a single county.
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Plaintiff asserts that because the word "legislature" means "the representative body which makes the laws of the people," (Doc. 12 at ¶ 37), and the Clause allows the legislature to prescribe the time, place and manner of holding elections for congresspersons, the Clause specifically grants the power to realign congressional districts to the legislature.[2] The Supreme Court, however, has at least twice rejected the notion that when it comes to congressional redistricting the Elections Clause vests only in the legislature responsibilities relating to redistricting. Both cases found that states were not prohibited from designing their own lawmaking processes and using those processes for the congressional redistricting authorized by the Clause. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a state can place the redistricting function in state bodies other than the legislature.
In the first case, Ohio ex. rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, the Ohio state constitution reserved to its voters the legislative power to approve or disapprove by popular vote any law passed by the state legislature. 241 U.S. 565, 566 (1916). Ohio voters used this referendum power to disapprove of a congressional redistricting plan drawn by the state legislature. Id. In response, a mandamus action was brought against state election officials to direct them to disregard that vote and proceed as if the redistricting plan passed by the legislature remained valid. Id. The petitioner's argument was "based upon the charge that the referendum vote was not and could not be part of the legislative authority of the state, and therefore could have no influence on the subject of the law creating congressional districts." Id. at 567. Specifically, the petitioner argued that to allow the referendum to block the legislature's plan would violate both the Elections Clause and the controlling act of Congress. Id. The State Supreme Court "held that the provisions as to referendum were a part of the legislative power of the state, made so by the [state] Constitution, and that nothing in the act of Congress of 1911, or in the constitutional provision, operated to the contrary, and that therefore the disapproved [redistricting] had no existence and was not entitled to be enforced by mandamus." Id.
In reviewing this decision, the United States Supreme Court first looked to the power of the state and explained that "the referendum constituted a part of the state Constitution and laws, and was contained within the legislative power," and thus the claim that the rejected plan nonetheless remained valid despite the referendum was "conclusively established to be wanting in merit." Id. at 568.
Next, the Court looked to how Congress had spoken on the issue under its own Elections Clause power to make or alter state regulations, remarking that the act of 1911 had "expressly modified the phraseology of the previous acts relating to [redistricting] by inserting a clause plainly intended to provide that where, by the state Constitution and laws, the referendum was treated as part of the legislative power, the power as thus constituted should be held and treated to be the state legislative power for the purpose of creating congressional districts by law." Id. at 568. The Court noted that while the earlier federal statute relating to apportionment had described redistricting by "the legislature" of each state, the 1911 act modified this language, describing redistricting be done by states "in the manner provided by the laws thereof." Id. The Court further noted that "the legislative history of this [1911 act] leaves no room for doubt that the prior words were stricken out and the new words inserted for the express purpose, so far as Congress has power to do it, of excluding" the argument made by petitioner. Id. at 568-69.
Finally, the Court considered whether the act of 1911 may itself have violated the Elections Clause. In doing so the Court declined to hold that the Clause granted redistricting authority uniquely to the state legislature as opposed to any other entity, including the people, which the state may have endowed with "legislative power." Thus the Court observed that the argument that Congress had violated the Elections Clause by authorizing re-districting to be accomplished "in the manner provided by the laws [of the state]" including referendum as it had been used in Ohio to reject the legislature's redistricting map, "must rest upon the assumption that to include the referendum in the scope of the legislative power is to introduce a virus which destroys that power, which in effect annihilates representative government." Id. at 569. The Court further noted that the question of whether legislative procedures such as the referendum that Ohio had adopted violated the republican guarantee clause "presents no justiciable controversy." Id. (citin Pacific States Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912)).
And, because the case reached the Court in the form of a formal appeal, the kind over which the Court has little or no discretion to bypass, there is a separate question of whether the Court did actually have to take on the case (that is, does it have formal jurisdiction). In deciding that issue, the Court may consider not only the standing issue but also claims by the supporters of the independent approach that the dispute is a political question not open at all to decision in the federal courts.
The state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments solicits and reviews applications from the public and nominates 25 candidates--ten Democrats, ten Republicans and five independents.
It's one easy way to get stricken from the pool. Like if it's a drug case, say you don't believe it should be illegal, etc. Usually from what I've witnessed the only chance you get to bring up jury nullification is if they ask you something like "do you recognize the role of the jury is to judge the facts, the court to judge the law, blah blah blah" otherwise it's kinda clear you're using it to get off. (Dirty minds!)
I usually get struck because of my degrees I think. Never had the opportunity to say that I don't recognize the authority of the state to demand my services without negotiated compensation.
EDIT: Some have argued [who?*] that it's morally justified to lie about it so you can get on the jury to then nullify. But like I said, I never get that far.
*Like Michael Huemer in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTyOC32-vs#t=40m30s
He looks like a younger Ron Paul.Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
a suit under a pimp fur coat is some next level young republicanism.
Edit: no wait, moment of seriousness here, that fucking cuntface had a pretty signficant role in taking down ACORN, and organization that did a whole lot of good for a whole lot people.
Fuck him and fuck the mechanism that allowed such a turd to come to be.
Okay, resume your point and laughing now.
Turtleface will have a vote on a standalone bill that strips the President of his executive powers re: immigration EO.
It was nice while it lasted I guess.
I wouldn't be surprised if he changes Senate rules. Ever since Reid did they said they'd get their revenge. This is it probably.
This seems like a really bad idea. Is the goal to force Obama to veto a bill that blocks his executive actions? What would that accomplish exactly? This is just McConnell trying to save Boehner's ass, again.
I don't think that will carry much weight though. They're Democrats so they will likely support the President. Running from him like Grimes and co. did last year is stupid.I think the goal is to get vulnerable Democrats on record as supporting the executive actions and alternatively show some Democrats voting against the executive actions.
Capitol Police dashed the weekend fun being had by neighborhood youngsters because one congressional leader appears to be a stickler for decorum.
Following the second wave of white stuff dumped on Washington, D.C., in just a few days, an HOH tipster said sled-toting families on Feb. 21 braved the frigid temperatures for a chance to feel the sting of kicked-up slush and whipping winds while zooming down the West Front of the Capitol.
Until a Capitol Police officer begrudgingly brought the seasonal merriment to a screeching halt.
When I questioned the officer about this, he said it has been prohibited for years, but Capitol Hill Police have been looking the other way. I asked him why they were changing now? He said Congress was insisting they enforce the ban, the fun seeker told HOH.
..
He replied it was the head of the appropriations committee who insisted on enforcement because he did not like the appearance of having the public sled next to the Capitol, the distressed party shared via email.
If this wont spur riots, nothing will
http://hoh.rollcall.com/congressional-grump-blamed-for-nixing-hillside-sledding/?dcz
I don't think that will carry much weight though. They're Democrats so they will likely support the President. Running from him like Grimes and co. did last year is stupid.
Besides, in 2016 they can say he's leaving town soon anyway.
I just think Mitch genuinely wants to stick it to his EO on immigration and use it as justification to start changing Senate rules.
Meh, they know if they don't fund HS they are going to take the blame so they are just looking for some way to point the finger at Democrats. Been pretty textbook for the Republicans for the last few years.
Is there really much benefit to McConnell going nuclear? I don't think Obama cares too much about potentially taking some heat for vetoes. And the downside is potentially huge looking at 2016.
Yea, there is zero upside for changing rules when you don't control the presidency. You would have a negative public perception AND get nothing from it.
It makes more sense to change it now, than to change it upon winning the presidency. Presidents have to pretend to be bipartisan during the early parts of their presidency, hence why they tend to avoid rule changes. Whereas changing it now would go under the radar. The only downside is that getting rid of the filibuster now would rob republicans of the "dems are being obstructionists" talking point. I'd imagine that's also why Harry Reid didn't do it.
Well, I don't mean a legal crime, since it's obviously not illegal, but it's a moral crime.
Or were you wondering about the first claim.
Here's something I'm sure Mitochondrion brought up earlier (oral arguments are in a week and a half) --
A new Public Policy Polling national survey finds Scott Walker leads the Republican presidential field with 25%, followed by Ben Carson at 18%, Jeb Bush at 17% and Mike Huckabee at 10%.
No other potential candidate gets more than 5% of the vote.