Pretty shocking that a libertarian conservative in the states' rights mold would be racist.http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...t-war-because?utm_term=.kwZAaOZgZ2#.oveVEa0dE
But he didn't write those newsletters!
Pretty shocking that a libertarian conservative in the states' rights mold would be racist.http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...t-war-because?utm_term=.kwZAaOZgZ2#.oveVEa0dE
But he didn't write those newsletters!
Just as good: many within the GOP are taking the bait and reacting in truly entertaining, politically untenable ways.
Almost seems like Obama is in campaign mode already, thinking about his legacy, choosing which actions to take, calculating..
Hey, I'd welcome the secession. The south can leave any time they want as far as I'm concerned.After the hyperinflation clearly, states need to get rid of those liabilities first.
Don't know why people get so worked up about secession. You know it's not about you personally right?
And nullification has brought great justice to this nation. It's a crime that it's a crime to inform juries of their rights.
Antonio Villaraigosa Wont Run for US Senate.
Well looks like we will have a Senator Harris in 2017.
I just want to see Obama go IN at the Democratic Convention in 2016.
Him and Bill taking turns roasting the GOP
I don't doubt the non-political desires he has for his legacy, but he seems to have a knack for picking issues that drive them nuts.That NYT articles made it very clear that he wanted net neutrality to be part of his legacy.
Net Neutrality is locked in ya'll!
Nigga we made it!!
Antonio Villaraigosa Wont Run for US Senate.
Well looks like we will have a Senator Harris in 2017.
Net Neutrality is locked in ya'll!
Nigga we made it!!
Indeed. Surprised that republicans tried that "Obamacare the internet" shit. Was Frank Luntz behind that...I wonder. And I'm disappointed that no elected republicans have come out for net neutrality (unless I'm overlooking someone).
Still...feels like something a corporate Hillary administration could shitcan.
Apparently it is all over right-wing radio lately. They are painting it as Obama's big take-over of the internet to stealz ya' FREEDOM!
You gotta hand it to the right . . . the are master propagandists. How do they spin doing the cable companies bidding into PROTECTING FREEDOM!
Indeed. Surprised that republicans tried that "Obamacare the internet" shit. Was Frank Luntz behind that...I wonder. And I'm disappointed that no elected republicans have come out for net neutrality (unless I'm overlooking someone).
Still...feels like something a corporate Hillary administration could shitcan.
So basically they want exactly what we're doing now?
Net Neutrality is locked in ya'll!
Nigga we made it!!
And there is big difference between jury nullification (what you bring up) and state nullification of federal laws.
And I'm disappointed that no elected republicans have come out for net neutrality (unless I'm overlooking someone).
MADISON, Wis. More than eight hours of testimony on a so-called right-to-work bill ended abruptly here Tuesday night after the Republican committee chairman cited a credible threat to disrupt the vote. In a hurried, chaotic roll call as protesters chanted in opposition, legislators voted to advance the bill to the full Senate.
Its a sad day for the state of Wisconsin, Senator Robert W. Wirch, a Democrat, said after the Republican committee members left the hearing under police guard.
The sudden ending, roughly 30 minutes before the hearing was set to conclude, underscored a day of peaceful but forceful union protest on the bill.
Earlier in the day, workers wearing scuffed-up hard hats and heavy coats assembled in the rotunda and outside the Capitol to voice their opposition to the bill. Many in the crowd, estimated by the Capitol police at 1,800 to 2,000, denounced the Republican-backed bill as an attack on working-class families designed to weaken organized labor. The peaceful protests unfolded as the Senate Committee on Labor and Government Reform heard a full day of testimony on the measure, which is being debated in a hastily convened extraordinary session.
The bill would allow private-sector workers who choose not to join unions to avoid paying the equivalent of dues, known as fair share payments. The widely protested 2011 law, enacted during the infancy of Mr. Walkers governorship, gave most public employees here that same right. Opponents say the payments should be required of all workers who benefit from contracts negotiated by unions, even if they do not belong to one.
State Senator Scott Fitzgerald, the Republican leader, told committee members Tuesday that the bill would be a boon to this industrial states economy and would help it become more competitive with states like Indiana and Michigan, which have enacted similar legislation in recent years. Supporters say the laws give more choice to employees and help entice businesses to expand or relocate.
That status quo that has maybe served us well for years is no longer working, because were not operating in just the state of Wisconsin economy, Mr. Fitzgerald testified. Were competing with Midwestern states. Were competing with states nationwide.
The accelerated timeline clearly rankled many of the bills opponents, who wondered aloud on Tuesday whether the session had been designed to limit debate and avoid the sort of protest seen four years ago.
But on Tuesday, there was tacit acknowledgment that the spirited opposition of the past had not succeeded. The bill covering public employees eventually passed, and Mr. Walker fended off a recall attempt in its aftermath.
I can't help but think that if Walker is the nominee, labor's efforts to defeat him in a few key swing states are going to be rather ballistic. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota.. yikes.
His base might eat this up, but union families who are culturally conservative and normally swing back-and-forth between Republican & Democratic voting habits might be a bit turned-off by this pattern of anti-union behavior.
Pattern? Its a massacre of unions. Its a clear assault on the middle class. And dems should proudly overturn these laws if they get back into power (which the never do it seems.)
What right to work states have then elected a Democratic House/Senate/Governor all at once in order to undo these laws?
IDK. I never see any attempts in these states to roll back any of the anti union legislation. When did Ohio and Il go right to work?
But what about that KXL veto? He killed tens of thousands of jerbs!
"Missed it by that much"
Ohio and Illinois aren't right to work states?
Shows what I know, I thought that's what the article mentioned
The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans "support establishing Christianity as the national religion" while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion
The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans "support establishing Christianity as the national religion" while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure.
>_<
The drama erupted over Giuliani's dumbassery proves that Walker's a light weight after all. The guy isn't just loved in Wisconsin by his base, he's also well respected by the mainstream media. But his past few PR disasters (Giuliani, his evolution remarks, him flubbing badly on Syria) proves that once there's even remotely any tough questions asked of him, the dude flails around miserably. And if he keeps attacking the media like some are suggesting he do, his reputation as a media darling won't last long.
Illinois Rep. Aaron Schock has hired top lawyers and public relations experts in the wake of recent questions surrounding his travel and entertainment expenses.
Schock, a rising Republican star already facing an ethics inquiry, had spent taxpayer and campaign funds on flights aboard private planes owned by some of his key donors, an Associated Press review found. There have also been other expensive charges, including for a massage company and music concerts.
By Tuesday, Schock brought on board Washington attorneys William McGinley and Donald McGahn, a former Federal Election Commission member. Schock also retained GOP communications experts Ron Bonjean and Brian Walsh, according to a person familiar with the changes who was not authorized to speak publicly. Politico first reported the hires Tuesday.
Schock's expenses, detailed by the AP and other news organizations in recent weeks, highlight the relationships that lawmakers can have with donors who fund their political ambitions. It's an unwelcome message for Schock, a congressman billed as a fresh face of the Republican party.
The AP's review identified at least one dozen flights worth more than $40,000 on donors' planes since mid-2011, tracking Schock's reliance on the aircraft partly through the congressman's penchant for uploading pictures and videos of himself to his Instagram account. The AP extracted location data associated with each image then correlated it with flight records showing airport stopovers and expenses later billed for air travel against Schock's office and campaign records.
IDK. I never see any attempts in these states to roll back any of the anti union legislation. When did Ohio and Il go right to work?
Ohio and Illinois aren't right to work states?
And won't be any time soon, thank Christ. Kasich learned his lesson about going after organized labor after the SB5 debacle.
That reminds me; the local NPR affiliate where I am can't say Kasich's name without immediately following it up with "presumed to be running for president," but I never see you guys talk about him at all. Think he's going to run?
That reminds me; the local NPR affiliate where I am can't say Kasich's name without immediately following it up with "presumed to be running for president," but I never see you guys talk about him at all. Think he's going to run?
Until Mitch Daniels in 2004, we had Democrat governors for 16 years straight.Guys, Leslie Knope did the impossible:
She won the governorship in Indiana as a Democrat!
Yates v. U.S. said:As the plurality must acknowledge, the ordinary meaning of “tangible object” is “a discrete thing that possesses physical form.” Ante, at 7 (punctuation and citation omitted). A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960).
The Supreme Court opinion in Yates v. U.S. is here. In this case, the federal government was prosecuting a fisherman who threw undersized fish overboard to avoid detection. The government claimed, among other things, that this violated 18 USC s. 1519, enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and making it a crime for a person to "knowingly alter[], destroy[], mutilate[], conceal[], cover[] up, falsif[y], or make[] a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States[.]" The government argued that the undersized fish were a "tangible object," but the fisherman argued that "tangible object" should not be interpreted so broadly, but should be read to refer to "tangible objects" that store information.
A majority of the Court holds that "tangible object" does not refer to fish. Justice Ginsburg writes for the Court, and is joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Justice Alito concurs in the opinion. Justice Kagan writes a dissent, in which Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas join. I haven't read the whole thing, but Kagan gets off to a good start:
dead.gif
Here's a thought, though. Couldn't you argue that even under the fisherman's argument, he was still in violation? The fish are tangible objects, and they do store information; not just the information inherent to them (i.e. they're fish), but also the information that the fisherman is trying to cover up (how many fish he's caught).
No one cares about evolution "gaffes" outside of the left. Most people don't even fully believe in evolution.The drama erupted over Giuliani's dumbassery proves that Walker's a light weight after all. The guy isn't just loved in Wisconsin by his base, he's also well respected by the mainstream media. But his past few PR disasters (Giuliani, his evolution remarks, him flubbing badly on Syria) proves that once there's even remotely any tough questions asked of him, the dude flails around miserably. And if he keeps attacking the media like some are suggesting he do, his reputation as a media darling won't last long.
The Supreme Court opinion in Yates v. U.S. is here. In this case, the federal government was prosecuting a fisherman who threw undersized fish overboard to avoid detection. The government claimed, among other things, that this violated 18 USC s. 1519, enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and making it a crime for a person to "knowingly alter[], destroy[], mutilate[], conceal[], cover[] up, falsif[y], or make[] a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States[.]" The government argued that the undersized fish were a "tangible object," but the fisherman argued that "tangible object" should not be interpreted so broadly, but should be read to refer to "tangible objects" that store information.
A majority of the Court holds that "tangible object" does not refer to fish. Justice Ginsburg writes for the Court, and is joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Justice Alito concurs in the opinion. Justice Kagan writes a dissent, in which Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas join. I haven't read the whole thing, but Kagan gets off to a good start:
yates v us said:Most district judges, as Congress knows, will recognize differences between such cases and prosecutions like this one, and will try to make the punishment fit the crime. Still and all, I tend to think, for the reasons the plurality gives, that §1519 is a bad law—too broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And I’d go further: In those ways, §1519 is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.
But whatever the wisdom or folly of §1519, this Court does not get to rewrite the law.