[andi*pandi]

I'm sure he's heard it by now.

[subego]

When I was a boy we called direct democracy “mob rule”.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

When I was a boy we called direct democracy “mob rule”.

I know Chicago has a history with the Mafia, but I didn't think they owned city hall in the 1970s.

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Hot on the heels of Tuesday’s results, some republicans (Rick Santorum, for example) are quietly floating a new, very scary, talking-point that democracy (or direct democracy) doesn’t work.

When you're a political party, and you get out of step with the population, you can:

A) Update your platform to more closely align with a majority of voters.
- or -
B) Attack democracy to remove the public's checks on unlimited representative power. So a minority can rule over the majority.

Majority rule has its issues. But Minority rule is so much worse. Considering the US has average voter turnout closer to 25% than 50%, it takes a LOT to piss off the majority into high turnouts. You don't get much "mob rule" unless those in power are waaayy out of step with the majority.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I know Chicago has a history with the Mafia, but I didn't think they owned city hall in the 1970s.

I mean, they had to get in line with everyone else, but as far as City Hall is concerned a suitcase of cash is a suitcase of cash, you know?

[Thorzdad]

Apparently, cities removing confederate monuments has upset a Florida legislator.

[Thorzdad]

Ohio Republicans Say It’s Their ‘God Given Right’ to Restrict Abortion Access

“No amendment can overturn the God-given rights with which we were born,”

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Majority rule has its issues. But Minority rule is so much worse.

Modern democracies solve this by having a majority rule with constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections (for minorities). But all democracies need a population that broadly supports democracy and accepts the rules of the game.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But all democracies need a population that broadly supports democracy and accepts the rules of the game.

The problem comes, as it has here, when a group realizes that there are no actual penalties for breaking/ignoring the rules. That the “rules” are merely gentlemen’s agreements. And that the referees (SCOTUS) can be fairly easily stacked in your favor, if you’re willing to play a long game.

[reader50]

From Thorz' link:

Another representative, Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), claimed the referendum had only passed due to “foreign election interference.”

I'm wondering which country supposedly interfered with Ohio elections to favor abortion rights. Also, what was the manner of interference? Did they alter votes (despite polls suggesting 56-57% in favor beforehand) or did they brainwash voters? Was it the Mongolian Masters or perhaps the Illuminati?

[Spheric Harlot]

’Twas the ghost of Hugo Chavez using those Jewish space lasers, tuned to the microwave spectrum and aimed at the tallying computers to flip bits.

[Spheric Harlot]

Either that or… [whispers] Deep State

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

From Thorz' link:

I'm wondering which country supposedly interfered with Ohio elections to favor abortion rights. Also, what was the manner of interference? Did they alter votes (despite polls suggesting 56-57% in favor beforehand) or did they brainwash voters? Was it the Mongolian Masters or perhaps the Illuminati?

I have a really hard time discerning when Maga politicians are just disingenuous, cynical or got high on their own supply and really believe their crazy conspiracy theories.

Even the “intellectuals” at National Review have blamed things like “ambiguous language” and the like for the loss. The fact that this is the 7th (or 8th if you count the earlier Ohio referendum on changing the rules to change Ohio's state constitution) loss in a row where the public rebukes the GOP's extremist views on abortion. They also put in the scales that “but but the American people vote for Republicans with ‘strong’ records on abortion”.

[subego]

It is implied in the above post that 7 or 8 losses means they should give up. I apologize if I misunderstood, but I’m not sure how it’s relevant otherwise.

Were the situation reversed, as in the pro-choice faction had lost 7 or 8 times, should they then give up too?

I humbly submit neither side should stop standing up for what they believe in.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Were the situation reversed, as in the pro-choice faction had lost 7 or 8 times, should they then give up too?

I humbly submit neither side should stop standing up for what they believe in.

The issue is that some Republicans lawmakers blame the loss on voting fraud, accusations that are baseless. That’s not something Democrats and Pro Choice activists have done.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The fact that this is the 7th… loss in a row where the public rebukes the GOP's extremist views on abortion.

How am I supposed to get this is a comment on claims of voter fraud?

[reader50]

Many Republicans have talked about cancelling Social Security and other entitlement programs. Of course, that would dump seniors into homelessness, and cancel the benefits they spent their working lives earning ... which would lead to horrible election losses.

So Reps don't try to pass laws cancelling SS. They don't post ballot measures on the subject, lose the votes, lose offices, and blame foreign countries hacking the voting system.

Why can't abortion be the same way? The public supports it, by a sizeable majority (62%). So stop attacking it, until/unless Reps can change a majority of voters' minds about bans.

It's costing Republicans govenorships, state legislative seats, state court seats, and may swing federal elections. At a time when Biden is unpopular, attacking abortion is even more unpopular, and is giving Dems victories almost across the board. Even when Reps still win, it's by smaller margins than expected in the reddest of states.

Rather than giving up, put abortion on the back burner pending a favorable change in public support.

[reader50]

Side note - SS is self-supporting. Workers pay employment taxes, which become retiree checks. If Reps actually cancelled SS benefits, they plan to leave employment taxes in place, right? To pay down the deficit? Because if they cancel the benefits AND the taxes, they get nowhere on the deficit. Enormous pain for seniors, and no change to the deficit whatsoever.

Kinda like past efforts, negotiating spending cuts or austerity with Dems. Then the next time Reps are in office, give away the savings in tax cuts for the rich. Notice the deficit keeps growing? If you actually want to kill the deficit, the solution is: cut spending and increase taxes. Maintain until the deficit is gone. The same way you pay down a CC debt or personal loan.

You tighten belt, and ask for a raise from your boss. You don't tighten belt, and ask for an offsetting pay cut from your boss. To make sure you don't pay off your debts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How am I supposed to get this is a comment on claims of voter fraud?

For one, you were posting right below my post where I refer to that without quoting any other post of mine. I think it was reasonable to assume that you were responding to my latest post.

If you are in favor of an unpopular opinion, then you need to adapt your strategy accordingly: you need to be open for compromise and focus on making your idea more popular. Personally, I believe that abortion is a lost cause that won’t get broad majorities again. Like e. g. civil rights and gay marriage. But that’s just my opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For one, you were posting right below my post where I refer to that without quoting any other post of mine. I think it was reasonable to assume that you were responding to my latest post.

If you are in favor of an unpopular opinion, then you need to adapt your strategy accordingly: you need to be open for compromise and focus on making your idea more popular. Personally, I believe that abortion is a lost cause that won’t get broad majorities again. Like e. g. civil rights and gay marriage. But that’s just my opinion.

What do you mean by lost cause? That it will become as unrestricted as it used to be?

[subego]

As an aside, this has been an example of our communication I don’t really understand.

In the original post I replied to you refereed to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times.

In my reply, I referred to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times.

Was it actually necessary to quote the sentence about losing 7 or 8 times to comprehend I was referring to the GOP losing 7 or 8 times? I figured the repetition of the sentence in my reply should have offered enough context. Sort of like I quoted the relevant part in my reply.

[Thorzdad]

Well, here we go again, kids. The budget follies are back this week. Pity poor Mike Johnson.

[reader50]

I read that Mike spent the 2-weeks off at Mar-a-lago. Presumably a free stay - he reportedly isn't rich. Didn't he sleep nights in the Speaker's office for a time?

But the stay with Trump can't be good for the country. Johnson will have to compromise with Dems again to pass anything, or we get a shutdown. Because the Reps cannot reach a majority, certainly not on anything that will pass the Senate. So in preparation for negotiations, he prepped by cozying up with the one person who's most disconnected from reality or compromise.

[Spheric Harlot]

A shutdown will be used as indication of how broken the government/swamp is, how the system isn't working, and how Only He Can Fix It™.

It's the fascist playbook; they're doing it here in Germany, as well: swamp all levels of government and the judiciary with as much complete bullshit as possible, tie up capacity, block whatever efforts you can to keep things running/improve them, point at how broken everything is and tell people you can't fix it except by sweeping it all away.

[OreoCookie]

To add to that, the previous CDU/CSU-led governments have opted to not address many pressing issues. So now that shit is hitting the fan, they point to the problems coming to the fore. High energy prices come to mind (conservative federal and state give have choked expansion of renewables, e. g. with a 10h rule that states that a wind turbine must not be closer to homes than 10 times its height). Russia’s war against Ukraine had energy prices soar.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To add to that, the previous CDU/CSU-led governments have opted to not address many pressing issues. So now that shit is hitting the fan, they point to the problems coming to the fore. High energy prices come to mind (conservative federal and state give have choked expansion of renewables, e. g. with a 10h rule that states that a wind turbine must not be closer to homes than 10 times its height). Russia’s war against Ukraine had energy prices soar.

Blaming the currently ruling party/parties for the problems caused by former administrations (and/or external circumstances) is basic opposition politics.

Using all available means to hinder a government from functioning at all is another dimension.

[Thorzdad]

Texas AG Ken Paxton has issued a civil investigative demand against PFLAG (the nation’s largest support organization for LGBTQ+ individuals and their families/loved ones) requiring the organization to identify its Texas transgender members, doctors who work with them (including out-of-state providers) and contingency plans for anti-transgender legislation in the state. PFLAG has sued to block the demand.

Here’s some good background on this move, including the receipts.

Paxton’s a straight-up fascist. Fucking hell.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Blaming the currently ruling party/parties for the problems caused by former administrations (and/or external circumstances) is basic opposition politics.

Using all available means to hinder a government from functioning at all is another dimension.

Hmmm, yes, although I think the CDU/CSU's inability to keep up with the times is one of the proximate causes for the growth of the AFD and potentially Sarah Wagenknecht's populist party: During Merkel's tenure, very, very few looking have been tackled. One of the few exceptions is proper gay marriage, but that was a sacrifice on the altar of “Let me govern for one more legislative period.” (And Merkel voted against it.) Olaf Scholz is trying to imitate Angela Merkel's style, badly. The Green's are blamed for “not following through on their promises” even though their ideas simply don't have the required majorities at present. The FDP is usually blocking all good ideas (including things that are not obviously partisan to me such as using the €100 billion extra funds in part for securing Germany's IT infrastructure).

Because change was not allowed to occur more slowly and is much more pressing now than it had been 10, 15 years ago, people are either overwhelmed or are against it (in no small part because they don't like (to face) the consequences of things like climate change and immigration). Mainstream parties should work to build positive visions of a future rather than going the easy and often more effective route of choosing fear.

[Spheric Harlot]

Agreed entirely.

[Waragainstsleep]

So the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's disqualification seems beyond troubling.
They've said Congress has to be the one to disqualify him but the amendment clearly says Congress' part is to vote to overturn the disqualification. This is a travesty of a ruling. The part I don't get is why the liberals have gone along with it. Are they just scared of reprisals and aware they weren't going to get their way chose to go along with it?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's disqualification seems beyond troubling.
They've said Congress has to be the one to disqualify him but the amendment clearly says Congress' part is to vote to overturn the disqualification. This is a travesty of a ruling. The part I don't get is why the liberals have gone along with it. Are they just scared of reprisals and aware they weren't going to get their way chose to go along with it?

I have to agree, this is a bad ruling.
The arguments seemed very weird, the Justices stated that we would have had 50 different rules, which would govern when and how a candidate could be stricken off a ballot. The US encounters this situation all the time. The simple solution is to define a floor, to set the standard for the legal minimum. By the way, that legal minimal hurdle might have been too high for Colorado to pass. Jackson's focus on this just being a rule made to keep former Confederates out of jobs was very strange: while the Civil War was the historical context, nothing in the Amendment mentions that as a criterion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

while the Civil War was the historical context, nothing in the Amendment mentions that as a criterion.

Isn’t context critical to the interpretation?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn’t context critical to the interpretation?

Inasmuch as the wording lends itself to interpretation, sure.

Which part of this is subject to context, in your opinion:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Tr*mp's defence, from what I've seen, rests either upon the assumption that HE isn't guilty of treason — or the fact that the office of President isn't explicitly mentioned.

Not that the situation that led to formulation of the 14th Amendment presents a different context.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Inasmuch as the wording lends itself to interpretation, sure.

Which part of this is subject to context, in your opinion:

All of it?

At the risk of starting quibbles over bizarre and irrelevant edge cases, context always matters.

This is true for life in general, of which law is a subset.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn’t context critical to the interpretation?

Context can clarify gaps and intent. But if it were meant to be applied to people involved in the Civil War, it must say so. That difference isn’t a gap. I think the text and the intent are clear, this passage of the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to people involved in the Civil War and all future instances. If not, the authors would have said so.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Context can clarify gaps and intent. But if it were meant to be applied to people involved in the Civil War, it must say so. That difference isn’t a gap. I think the text and the intent are clear, this passage of the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to people involved in the Civil War and all future instances. If not, the authors would have said so.

There is ZERO reason for Constitutional Amendment if the text is not intended to apply to all future generations.

[OreoCookie]

Completely agreed.
This is not a case where you need to figure out what “well-regulated” or “reasonable” means.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Context can clarify gaps and intent. But if it were meant to be applied to people involved in the Civil War, it must say so. That difference isn’t a gap. I think the text and the intent are clear, this passage of the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to people involved in the Civil War and all future instances. If not, the authors would have said so.

What?

Who is arguing it doesn’t apply to future instances? The argument is it’s a federal matter, not a state one, correct?

[reader50]

US Constitution, Section 1: (chusing the President)

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So the States choose the "manner" of appointing Presidential Electors. At present all states have public elections.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Congress can set some background dates for the Electoral College, though they're not required to - note the word "may". And nothing is said about how to run the Election in each state. Or details like ballot qualifications within each state.

Now, the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to set ballot criteria within each state for Presidential elections is reserved to the States, as it wasn't delegated to the Feds. This may be inconvenient, with different criteria in each state. But it complies with the plain wording of the Constitution. The word "convenience" does not appear anywhere within the Constitution.

[OreoCookie]

Yeah, reader has nailed it.
It is disappointing to see the blatant partisanship: slowroll cases when it benefits Trump and accelerate them when it benefits Trump. The immunity case is the flip side to the Colorado ballot case: Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to take the case up immediately, but SCOTUS declined. The District Court wrote a straightforward, well-reasoned, unanimous ruling that would need no further elaboration. And then SCOTUS takes the case? Why? What can they add? And if they thought, they should be the last arbiter, why not take the case immediately.

The claim is, of course, that they don’t want to appear political. Except political concerns were the most prominent, also in the CO ballot access case. IMHO SCOTUS and all other courts should ignore politics as much as possible. If that becomes politically inconvenient, so be it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

The power to set ballot criteria within each state for Presidential elections is reserved to the States

Section 3 explicitly gives Congress the authority to exempt insurrectionists.

At the time of its enactment, due to the current level of technology and the sheer quantity of insurrectionists running for office, quite literally the only way for this stricture to be met was for exemptions to be considered after an insurrectionist was elected.

[Waragainstsleep]

Also, it specifically mentions that Congress can vote to make an exception to the disqualification, why would they ever do that if they had to vote to disqualify them in the first place?

[subego]

Also, also, for our textualists out there,..

Section 3 bars insurrectionists from holding office. Did we mess that up when we wrote it because we actually meant “seeking” office?

[OreoCookie]

Can we put a 30-year old on the Presidential ballot, too? I think it is fair to infer that any person on the ballot must satisfy all Constitutional requirements upon taking the oath.

[reader50]

Colorado has a "ballot-purity" law, requiring only valid candidates. Who can hold the office they're running for. Not all states have such a law - several of the 14th Amendment challenges failed for that reason.

In California for example, I think you could put Snoopy on the ballot. You'd have to buy enough signatures to qualify "him", and any eventual votes would be wasted. In Colorado, there will be no Snoopy entries on any ballot.

[subego]

Got a cite? A search for “Colorado ballot purity” got me very little. It did note Colorado has an expedited process.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Colorado has a "ballot-purity" law, requiring only valid candidates. Who can hold the office they're running for. Not all states have such a law - several of the 14th Amendment challenges failed for that reason.

I'm surprised that these laws are not standard. It seems odd to have candidates on the ballot who are ineligible for office.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think it is fair to infer that any person on the ballot must satisfy all Constitutional requirements upon taking the oath.

Correct.

One of these requirements is insurrectionists are granted an exemption vote in Congress. This is for every federal and state office.

As I noted, at the time of its enactment, due to technology and the sheer quantity of insurrectionists running for office, the only way this stricture could be followed was to grant the hearing after the election. This is of course before the oath.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm surprised that these laws are not standard. It seems odd to have candidates on the ballot who are ineligible for office.

Section 3 explicitly makes insurrectionists eligible candidates.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Section 3 explicitly makes insurrectionists eligible candidates.

You mean the section that explains a candidate involved in insurrection is ineligible unless Congress allows it with a 2/3 vote. To me that means such persons are ineligible unless Congress overrides it with a 2/3 vote. You seem to read it on reverse.

Originally Posted by subego 

As I noted, at the time of its enactment, due to technology and the sheer quantity of insurrectionists running for office, the only way this stricture could be followed was to grant the hearing after the election. This is of course before the oath.

And laws can’t change? Especially since we are no longer bound by the same restrictions and the number of people involved are several orders of magnitude smaller? The Constitution expressly gives states the right to organize (federal) elections. Among other things, there are registration deadlines, for example, and attached to that are conditions that need to be met at that time.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Got a cite? A search for “Colorado ballot purity” got me very little. It did note Colorado has an expedited process.

"ballot purity" was a phrase used in some news coverage. From the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, they reference:

Invoking provisions of Colorado’s Uniform Election Code of 1992, §§ 1-1-101 to 1-13-804, C.R.S. (2023) (the “Election Code”), the Electors requested that the district court prohibit Jena Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado’s Secretary of State (“the Secretary”), from placing President Trump’s name on the presidential primary ballot.

I didn't see specific quotes from these sections, sorry. Probably because the litigants didn't challenge any parts of the CO Election Code.