Printable View
I suspect the SC will become increasingly more important to stave off the commie bastards attempted takeover of our country. So, a separate thread is required. And might as well start with this
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
"As long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional."
OMG, wake the F&^$ up, America. This is not a good thing.
This is friggin Nazi Germany all over again.
Exactly my fellow Dawgs!Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
And yet we have folks that are totally blind to this as their ears are tickled by the evil whispers.
I was just thinking the whole "defund the police" movement is nothing more than an attempt to control law enforcement for their own purposes. They are willing to "negotiate" away from the defund position IF they are able to decide which tactics, laws and procedures the police are able to employ. Remember, right now the police are only acting on laws THEY created in the first place....Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
They already control public education and are using it to brainwash our children. THIS is why they do not believe in school choice. They lose control.
They are using their positions in big tech to control the flow of information. Disagree with their "truth" and you get shut down.
Horrible that we have to depend on John Roberts to defend America at this point.
Yes and yes. And to your comment about Big Tech the SC needs to squelch its power to eliminate free speech and those that seek the evil truths of the fascist Dems. These high techs have become a bunch of commie snowflakes and mouth pieces of the rising number of Dem. fascist.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Look at the latest below.
11 Feb 2021
Twitter Locks the Accounts of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas
Social media platform Twitter has locked the accounts of both Project Veritas and James O’Keefe following a recent report relating to Facebook’s VP of Integrity, Guy Rosen. The platform claims the report violates its policy on “posting private information,” and as a result, both O’Keefe’s personal account and the official account of Project Veritas have been locked, preventing them from posting.
Twitter has locked the accounts of Project Veritas and the group’s founder James O’Keefe. The account limiting comes shortly after Project Veritas published an exposé on Facebook’s VP of Integrity, Guy Rosen. The video of Rosen is available on the Project Veritas website.
A tweet from Breaking911 shows the messages that Project Veritas and O’Keefe received when they attempted to access their accounts.
More
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...oject-veritas/
Kudos to Justice Sotomayer for her position on this:
Supreme Court Considers Fourth Amendment Exception To Let Cops Seize Guns Without A Warrant (forbes.com)
She's a lib justice, appointed by a Dem POTUS (Clinton?) but when she's right, she's right and I will always give credit when it's due. This is what the SC should do in every case. It's not their role to "make laws" or to try to apply recent societal thoughts to Constitutional law (rulings). Apply the law, that's it.
I recently took part in a historical round table discussion, specifically on the so-called "Civil War" (which it wasn't), and the topic of slavery was at the forefront of the discussion, especially in questions from the audience. Only a couple of us understood that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was totally meaningless and did not free a single slave. The puzzled looks on people's faces and their insistence they were right was "interesting," and a bit frustrating. I won't go into the details since I know everyone on this forum is well-versed in real history. I will point out, however, given the topic of this thread, the role of the Supreme Court and its adherence to the Constitution. The SC overturned several lower-court rulings, state legislatures, and a committee in Congress all of which wanted to "free the slaves" because the North had won the war, and besides, it was the right thing to do. Granted, but the Constitution allowed for the keeping of slaves, was the "law of the land" and only amending it could change that. The SC received death threats when they first over-turned some of the unconstitutional rulings, but they were correct in insisting strict adherence to the law. Ratification of the 13th Amendment in November, 1865 abolished slavery in the US, not Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January, 1863.
The role of the SC is to apply the Constitution to rulings from lower-courts and "laws" passed by legislative bodies. And when those fail to meet the criteria, it is not the role of the SC to fix it for them, but to merely send it back whence it came with a "try again."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Goosey is on record saying he absolutely does not support this!!
I do believe that if the SCOTUS votes to allow this, then this will be the tipping point. There will be nothing that would be "off limits" to a warrantless search and seizure. This literally would be like Nazi Germany..Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
It is funny to see conservatives now care about the 4th amendment. In the last case where the issue was one occupant of a car consenting and the other not consenting to a search, it was conservatives in the court that found an exception to the warrant requirement while the liberals found that a warrant was required.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Randolph
That has been the tradition - liberal judges not broadening exceptions to warrant requirement with conservatives supporting a loosening.
As a REAL libertarian, I care about ALL TEN amendments making up the bill of rights. Maybe "conservatives" like Johnny will support government intrusion (unless it is a government run by the BOM), but most probably don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Well, you shouldn’t support so-called “conservative” justices then.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
I don't. Don't support the progressive liberal ones either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I also think the patriot act is the source of some of the most horrendous government intrusions into the lives of American citizens, including the illegal spying on a presidential candidate. You seem to be for this intrusion.
Now, if the government was made up of trustworthy folks that didn't think they were above the rules they create, some of this may actually be helpful to prevent terrorism, but....
I was one of the rare people here criticizing the patriot act when it was passed. Go back and check the tape. The conservatives here loved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Then the libs are not liberal, the conservatives not conservative on this particular issue. Why does a judge, or anyone for that matter, have to wear only one tag? I have posted before I have positions on some issues that is considered liberal, even though I am MOSTLY conservative overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
In commie regressive hands this is much worse my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
AMENQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Have finished nearly 4,000 pages of the 4,800-page volumes on Napoleon. Absolutely fascinating! Whatever else you may think of him as a historical figure, megalomaniac, etc...he was an incredibly accomplished and tirelessness "leader."
Napoleon either wrote from scratch or closely edited every word of the extensive "Napoleonic Code" which is basis of some Louisiana state laws today, and which served not only France, but a good portion of Europe for 20 years (1795-1815) and beyond, especially in France. On the topic of "search and seizure" Napoleon's law (code) allowed ANY evidence "illegally" seized by police to remain admissible to prosecute the suspect. But! the police officers who engaged in illegal activities faced criminal charges themselves, which resulted in stiff fines and/or some prison time, and dismissal from the police force. Napoleon wrote that a criminal should not escape prosecution just because the evidence gathered against him violated the law. Interesting.
Napoleon's Chief of Police was a fellow named Joseph Fouche' and he served in that capacity for most of Napoleon's reign. At the end, after the Battle of Waterloo, Fouche' reluctantly offered to turn out his "special forces," military police units to "quiet the people in the streets" who were calling for Napoleon's head on a platter. To which Napoleon famously replied, "I wish to serve the people of France, not murder them in the streets. I will abdicate the throne." Fouche' was relieved as he had already quietly sided with those seeking to negotiate a surrender to the allies.
Anyway, I agree with Napoleon's code that criminals should not get off if police discover evidence without a warrant, but if said police violated laws, they too should face consequences.
Well the dems are drafting legislation that they plan to introduce tomorrow that will allow the increase of the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 Justices. There is a massive majority of US that DOESN"T want this to happen, Republicans and Democrats alike.. Truly bipartisan. This should not be allowed to happen. House Dems only have a 2 vote majority. Maybe some normal democrats will vote against this.
Did the idiots who voted for this even care or was defeating bad orange man the be all end all?
Lightweight can answer that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
If your boy hadn’t gift wrapped GA for the Dems, this would be a non-issue. A great picture of why he had to go...and never should’ve been nominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
great strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Ha! I thought you said you understood it. GA was easily winnable long after Trump got beat. He just couldn’t help himself in bringing others down with him. But, you got all that great outsider stuff, so there’s that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Trump hurt soy boy’s feelings, so he voted the most liberal ticket in US history.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I’m LMAO.
You believe Bad orange man cost Georgia, Biden won in a landslide, and systemic racism is to blame for our current problems...you are part of the problemQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Soy boy? You throw stuff like that out a lot. Do you need to talk to someone about some repressed feelings that are confusing you?Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Trump is to blame for GA, Trump is the won who called Biden’s margin a landslide, and its illogical to think 400 years of oppression magically goes away after 50 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The problem being discussed here is one of Trump’s own making. You don’t have to see it, but it’s true.
so all you have for a solution is 400 years of reparations to calm the animals?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Never proposed that...certainly not as the only solution. How is calling everybody who disagrees with you idiots and animals working out?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Trump still living in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Your guy called the GA voting law Jim Crow on steroids. You good with that?
You and your leftist friends are the ones doing thatQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
He’s your guy too. No, I think it’s stupid to call it Jim Crow, but I thought we were fine with stupid rhetoric and overstatements now. You guys switch around quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
It’s not Jim Crow, but it is an obvious voter suppression bill...if you can’t beat em, don’t let em vote.
I don’t have any leftist friends...except 967. It’s literally what you do every day. I take it that it’s not working out?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You are a rascist idiot!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Well, while straw man escapes you, you’ve got a good handle on ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I really don't see what the big deal is.. most states have voter ID requirements. TX has them, I show my DL every time I go to vote. Same in LA years ago. You can't get a stimulus check without an ID.. is that racist? You can't get government assistance without an ID. My Dr. and the medical practice that my wife works at does not see patients unless they provide an ID first time in the office. The vast majority of Americans both republican and democrats support voter ID laws. If you cannot afford them, then one could be provided for you at no charge.
You elitist can go there but not those who disagree
Most of the Trump Supporters on this board, including me, said several times there were things we did not like about Trump and/or disagreed on a particular subject. But you have to see the big picture. That makes you a lightweight or a fraud, not sure which.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Voter suppression, LOL. I think that answers my riddle above.
blah, blah, blah, its voter suppression because you have to prove you have a pulse to voteQuote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
That’s a cop out. I’ve NEVER called YOU a racist or an idiot. You’ve said those things about me as well as numerous other things you know to be untrue. You’re not talking to Rachel Maddow, you’re talking to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You obviously aren’t woke enough. Celebrities, including Will Smith have said they are pushing to get movie production out of Georgia because of the racist law. They want to move production to Louisiana.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
I believe you are a racist because skin color is your line in the sandQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Well, that’s unfortunate...particularly since I’ve never said anything of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
At the end of the day, haters gonna hate.
Dems are moving to pack the SC...not surprisingly.
LMAO! You started a thread about systemic racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
You said you supported BLM, the cause, not the organization. The cause was well defined in the BLM manifesto. I think they tweaked it some once it started getting attention.
What does your employer think about Texas’s voting laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Republicans keep suppressing the vote in Texas, but even here there are exceptions to the photo ID rule.
Some doctors choosing to require a photo ID means nothing. People without photo IDs still manage to get health care and other services.
You don’t have to have a photo ID to get a stimulus check. That is just a lie.
Meanwhile, you continue to suppress intelligent conversation. Why are you afraid of needing an ID to vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I know! why are libs so AFRAID of assuring "one vote for one legal, registered, legit citizen." Makes you think they want to cheat or something....nah! that ain't possible :icon_roll: .Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
But in order to cash said stimulus check, you have to have an ID or an account that was opened with at least 2 forms of ID (one being a valid picture ID). If not, then the bank teller or check casher at WalMart didn’t have proper information to be able to cash the check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Strawman! :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Having worked in banking for 12 years of my life, I can tell you, this ID bull crap is simply that. It probably is somewhere in that straw man argument umbrella because some on here insist that ID’s are racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Don't know.. personally don't care.. You think they are going to move HDQ out of TX because of TX voter ID laws? Think any Fortune 100 Companies are going to uproot their HDQ and and move due to voter ID laws? ROFL.. If this were such a "nobel" cause, then why aren't the big boys who have memberships at Augusta National Golf Course giving up their memberships?? It's all BS...
Oh man! Hopefully they'll get that legislation passed to pack the court with progressive liberals.
This could mean that one day Johnny's daughter (if he has one) will be able to take a school bus to the abortion clinic in a black neighborhood! Trump's fault, of course.
And his beloved RINOs continue to whine and whine.
Georgia was stolen from Trump. Period!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Boob Biden forgetting his beliefs, what he’s stated in the past, if he ever had any.
Not to mention the Constitution which the Regressives care zero about.
Published 14 hours ago
FLASHBACK: That time Biden called court-packing a 'bonehead idea'
Biden said FDR's attempt to do it put in question the independence of the Court 'for an entire decade.
President Biden’s one-time opposition to the concept of "court-packing" could soon be put to the test as top Democrats introduce legislation to expand the Supreme Court.
Congressional Democrats led by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., will detail their plan to expand the Supreme Court by four justices at a press conference on Thursday. The announcement will come just days after Biden signed an executive order establishing a commission to study a potential expansion.
But support for "court-packing" would mark a reversal of an opinion Biden expressed in 1983 while serving as a U.S. senator from Delaware. At the time, Biden spoke out against President Ronald Reagan’s bid to replace three members of the US Commission on Civil Rights.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden likened Reagan’s effort to that of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who launched an unsuccessful bid to add six justices to the Supreme Court in 1937.
More
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fla...d-idea-in-1983
Regressive liberal’s and those that vote to somehow allow them in power are lost as a goose and and remember not their biblical history nor duty. They remind me of the German people voting in and allowing Hitler to seize them with his socialist political agenda and the Jews allowing evil Kings to reign over them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Published 3 hours ago
FLASHBACK: Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed court-packing, said 'nine seems to be a good number'
In 2019, Justice Ginsburg firmly opposed expanding size of Supreme Court
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fla...-court-packing
Why are these liberals so worried about the bias of a court that has overwhelmingly fallen on the “liberal” side of issues since Trump’s 3 nominations?
If they truly wanted a “balanced” court, they should propose adding 1 seat. Require that each side nominate 5 justices. When a justice retires or passes, then the side that lost one nominates and approves a new one for their side. Eternal 5-5 split is the ultimate balance. Nothing gets done. Hey, it’s just like Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Just saw Pelosi says she will not support the move to expand the court and will not allow the measure to reach the floor of the House for debate/vote. Instead she wants to give the Biden-appointed, so-called bipartisan commission a chance to make a recommendation.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Then...introduce legislation to expand the court :rolleyes4:
At least you don’t have to wonder what she is thinking. She reassurea us daily that she isn’t thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Can the Supreme Court hear a case against the expansion of their own body?
Since they are a body based on Constitutional law, they'd have to say it's OK. Nothing in the Constitution sets the number of court members.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
If they do it, say goodbye to checks and balances and some very ugly unintended consequences.
I figured. Our “leadership” has gone completely off the rails and everyone needs to be primaried.
Dems packing the court is dangerous ground. What is our resident attorney's thoughts on this? He's been very quiet.
The leader of the house said she won’t bring it to the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
It’ll have about the same impact as Cruz’s antitrust claims of MLB...just political theater.
I thought she said not until the commission rubber stamps it. Basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Not exactly: https://apple.news/AA0moxPrBThGEKaRCfu1mvgQuote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Pelosi has punted for now. But, the matter is not dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I have read some opinions, mostly "thinking out loud" type of rhetoric from pundits of instituting term limits for SC justices. A term of 18 years has been discussed. I think the Constitution would have to amended for that to happen. Well...I would be okay to listening to discussion, pro and con, about the idea, as long as term limits for Congress, both houses was included in that discussion.
So, focusing on the SC, would such term limits (18 years) be productive? Would it help placate those wishing to pack the court? And!! would it be made retroactive such that the current membership would be subject to said 18 year limit? If so, Thomas and Breyer would be gone and Roberts and Alito would be getting close.
Thoughts?
Oh, yeah, I realize if such a matter was actually taken up it would be many years before the changes could be ratified and go into effect. But, just "for fun" I mentioned what implementing 18-year term limits would do to the current court.
I’d much rather term limits for Congress.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
That is a no brainer for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I can certainly agree with you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I agree that Congressional term limits are more important than the Supreme Court.
I do like the idea of an 18 year term on the Court. It would require an amendment. When the Constitution was written, a 50 year old starting at the court was probably not looking at more than about 15 years serving. People staying active into their 80s has made a life term much longer. Limited terms might take some of the gamesmanship out of selecting justices (though probably not much, sadly). I don't think it could be made retroactive, but I'll leave that to the lawyers in the group, and I'm not sure it should anyway.
Bad orange man wants term
limits for congress so it has to be a bad thing
ASAPQuote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Education Department says Title IX protects LGBTQ students (msn.com)
From the article:
In the 6-3 Bostock majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination based on sex.
Duh. Ridiculous that Trump ever disagreed with this.
so how many “sexes” are there? I know…two where the parts fit and reproduction can occur. Of course that’s science and not nature right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The “know-nothing” act is so charming. Don’t ever stop!Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I see. The definition of sexes is as flexible as infrastructure and “commitment”
What sex is a hermaphrodite?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Is a female that is barren not a “female”?
Limiting the definition of “sex” to someone with a certain type of plumbing that fits with another plumbing and can reproduce…sounds like you are creating definitions that don’t divide the whole world into 2 groups, not science.
so it’s not nature (natural) that you and you fellow idiots support?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
9-0 in favor of religious rights...
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Catholic Social Services of Philadelphia.
Not even liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan or Breyer dissented...
ABOUT THE CASE: The City of Philadelphia decided in March of 2018 that they would refuse to partner with Catholic Social Services in providing foster care services to children, unless the Catholic agency would place children in the homes of same-sex couples. Of course, this is impossible. Catholic teaching requires that we uphold the definition of marriage, but also affirm that children do best in homes with both a mother and a father.
The Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment:
"Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature."
I don't agree with the Bostock ruling mentioned above, but understand the legal definition used to justify the decision by the 6 who voted the way they did. I think they are wrong, but at least a Trump appointee voted against the POTUS who nominated him. Likewise this Philly case instills confidence in me about the SC.
Sometimes the SC gets it wrong...IMO...but if they are all applying the law, the Constitution, and are not being politically hacks, then they function, overall, in a manner that serves the best interest of the nation. This is exactly what MOST of us want! Yeah, sure, there are those extremists on both wings that want the SC to always rule in their favor on every issue. Not based on the law, but on political/philosophical leaning. I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be thrilled if the SC always ruled exactly the way I want them to. But, that's not the way the world works, so as long as they are being non-political and actually adhering to the law/the Constitution, I can live with those decisions that don't go my way.
Glad the decision went the way it did, but wish they had gone the full nine yards and overturned Oregon v. Smith. That was a bad decision (a 5-4 decision that was probably Scalia's worst hour -- and where all the dissent was on the left, though it now seems the left wants to oppose the idea of "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive means", sad).Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
In a 5-4 decision the SC ruled the CDC's eviction moratorium unconstitutional. I have not seen who voted for/against but I assume it was pretty much along party lines. This is long past due. In fact the SC should be more proactive in such cases. The NAR (National Association of Realtors) joined in a lawsuit against the CDC over a year ago...there were other plaintiffs...and a lower court ruled, a year ago, against the CDC's ruling, which the CDC appealed. The lower court judge set aside her ruling pending the appeal. And now the SC has failed to end the moratorium immediately opting to allow it to expire July 31.
The CDC and other such agencies do NOT have constitutional authority to impede on private property rights. Once the lower court had ruled the SC should have asked for the case...demanded! that the case come to it, since it was heading their way via appeal eventually. This was a fundamental, blatant violation of constitutional rights and was a slam dunk...or should have been. In fact, the SC should have voted 9-0 on this matter and the fact 4 morons didn't shows how dangerous the SC is capable of being. Again, I do not know which justices voted for/against.
No it didn’t. Kavanaugh joined with the majority to allow the CDC eviction ban to stay in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Heard about a case in California where a couple sold their home (big $$$ being in California) and when it was time to leave, the people who sold the house refused to leave stating COVID eviction or some such nonsense. So you now have people who have purchased a home legally. Are probably having to make mortgage payments on the house, and the prior owners are refusing to leave and California is allowing them to stay. That is just wrong IMO. This has been going on for months.
If so this is a bad ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
This is the government (first a bunch of idiot bureaucrats then the judiciary branch) depriving citizens of their property rights. This is worse than eminent domain.
Score one for the Marxists.
He must have been standing in the hall drinking from a red solo cup when the arguments were made.
If they took my property like that, I'd have it razed with the sellers in it. Can't kick them out, but perhaps a few alterations will change their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...ba492fd1b92f71Quote:
In a brief opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with Friedrich’s ruling, but voted to leave the ban on evictions in place because it’s due to end in a month and “because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.”
This is worse yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
This means that he trusted the ambiguous word of Biden who said he doesn't "expect" the moratorium to be extended past the end of the month. So now if he does extend it.....what then? Is the owner of a property stuck with another year of legal battles to get to the high court to see if they will apply the law or succumb to some statement a politician has made?
Heck, Biden probably doesn't even remember making that statement anymore (especially if it was as late as last week).
On a similar note...the State of New York forbids landlords from refusing to accept Section 8 vouchers. Most states allow the landlord the option to choose as long as you are consistent. Can't discriminate between Section 8ers but you can say no to all, or accept all. That is wrong in of itself. It's a violation of fundamental private property rights. ALL so-called housing discrimination laws are unconstitutional and all such laws should be struck from the books. Under Louisiana law landlords are free to choose, again, as long as you are consistent. I have refused Section 8 vouchers across the board and have been consistent about it. No means no.
On another note, under Louisiana law, and probably other states too (I guess), landlords are "required" to have a mix of tenants "that look like the population." There are privately funded, but also taxpayer supported (grants), organizations that employ both "secret shopper" and surveyors who will confront a landlord demanding to know how many tenants they have and what is the racial, ethnic, sex, and I suppose sexual orientation make-up of your tenants. I love gay black dudes and black females as tenants since they check most of the boxes. Last year, just because of circumstances, I had a too heavy load of straight, Christian, white males. I had others from the "protected groups" who I showed a property to and was willing to rent to them, but they chose to go elsewhere. I was thrilled when 6 of those unacceptable "straight, Christian, white males" graduated in May and moved on. I have since filled some of those slots with acceptable tenants and my balance now falls into the acceptable i.e. won't get sued range.
Attended a Fair Housing seminar recently and was reminded that EVERYONE not a "straight, Christian white male" is PROTECTED. It's comical to watch the idiot, with Power Point (Ugh!), go through the 'protected classes'. It would be easier to just say if you are NOT an evil "straight, Christian white male" then you are protected!
To be fair, and 100% accurate, I should add that family status and handicapped people are also protected, and it's possible that a "straight, Christian white male" may qualify as protected under one of those labels.
ALL so-called "fair housing" laws are unconstitutional and should all be stricken from the books. (this is the Libertarian in me!)
Simple work around. Just identify as a single mother, black, Puerto Rican disabled woman no matter what color or gender you are. The "party of science" will never figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Genius!Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
SCOTUS upholds Arizona voting regulations
NBC6 Miami
quote:
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona in a decision that could make it harder to challenge other voting measures put in place by Republican lawmakers following last year's elections.
The court, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a lower court ruling in deciding that Arizona’s limits on who can return early ballots for another person and refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct are not racially discriminatory.
The federal appeals court in San Francisco had held that the measures disproportionately affected Black, Hispanic and Native American voters in violation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a conservative majority that the state's interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was weakening the landmark voting rights law for the second time in eight years.
"What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’ I respectfully dissent,” Kagan wrote, joined by the other two liberal justices.
The challenged Arizona provisions remained in effect in 2020 because the case was still making its way through the courts.
President Joe Biden narrowly won Arizona last year, and since 2018, the state has elected two Democratic senators.
Hooray! the first of many such victories I hope.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad outcome, and I don't have a problem with the SCOTUS verifying that these laws aren't unconstitutional.
I do think as a rule of thumb the idea of "election security" is much more compelling when regulations are aimed at preventing ineligible people from voting (to the extent that it happens or could happen) rather than at reducing the ease with which eligible people vote. But certainly to me, this kind of thing would fall under states coming up with their own rules for elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Seems like NY is still having trouble with local election counts.. can't get it together.. I think they also have weighted selection process, so you can rank your choices but then it gets really muddy as to what happens to votes and how they are distributed for those who don't come out on top..
I'm a big fan of ranked choice voting, and I was curious to see how it'd play out in a bigger election like this (as I understand it, where it's been tried in other decent sized cities they're not seeing the benefits you'd expect so I was really hoping for some more data from the real world). But you know, you can't count the sample ballots in your actual results. ;) And of course, another knock (expected) is that it takes longer to tally. I still like the idea, and I hope more places try it (and I'm glad this screw up is within a party primary and not the actual general election because I do think it's not a conspiracy just error). I mean, the Democratic primary for NY Mayor is a de facto election for the mayor at this point, but still - hopefully the fact that they can't blame the other party will keep the temperature lowered here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog