|
|
https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...ba492fd1b92f71In 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.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.
Genius!
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.
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.
I am no fan of ranked choice voting. Not hard to see why you would be since it serves to entrench a corrupt majority in power.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.
The current situation in New York City just shows how local elected officials in large democrat-controlled metropolitan areas are unqualified to conduct fair and impartial elections and produce timely results within 24-48 hours of the polls closing. Ranked-choice voting adds unnecessary layers of voting that increase delays and confusion in getting results.
And if nothing shady was going on, why do those NYC officials have to hold an illegal secret meeting after the fact?
NYC election officials met in secret to discuss botched vote (nypost.com)
Noted another NY Post headline where an NAACP official opposes ranked-choice voting.
And more chances to cheat.
I don't know why you think I'd be on board with entrenching a corrupt majority in power (or how ranked voting does that).
I like ranked voting because I hate the 2 party stranglehold. And I don't like extremist positions grabbing nominations with small pluralities. And I do like the opportunity to vote your conscience instead of trying to play the odds and vote against your least favorite candidate. In theory, ranked choice would help with this. In practice, we'll see.
I don't love that it takes longer to tally, but I'm not sure what the rush is on results. There isn't anything magical about getting the winner within 48 hours or anything.
Especially when the Dems need time to fabricate fake ballots...
Agreed on all of this. I think the problem with hoping that ranked-choice voting would defeat the 2-party stranglehold is the fact that the majority of the country is still stuck with first-past-the-post system and thus keep all the power nationally in the hands of the two parties. They keep the majority of publicity and fundraising for themselves in the country and no one gets to hear from other parties. I think if we start seeing ranked choice voting or other variations nationwide in local, statewide and national elections we'll start to see an emergence of other parties, including a strong Libertarian Party, strong Green Party, many other nationwide parties and various regional parties. But like you say, in practice, we'll see.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
