Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Romney has made the largest contribution possible to Chris Christie’s reelection bid.
....That's actually very surprising.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Sean Hannity: Representative Ellison 'the incoherent congressman'
You gotta love the madness of Palin.
edited 27th Feb '13 9:31:44 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The patent troll idea is a good one, but I'm not sure it's coming at it from the right direction. Making the loser pay the winner's legal fees can go bad places very quickly.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Well, to be fair to Palin, groups like the Department of Homeland Security did buy a 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year
, which is far and away far more than their own agencies will ever need even if handing out a lot of ammo for training for even 70,000 new agents, and several thousand M4 assault rifles (actual machine guns, as opposed to the semi-auto AR-15s other agencies use) for the purpose of "domestic self-defense".
Even if you gave 10,000 rounds to each new agent to train and practice with over the next 5 years, it's by far more than necessary to buy all at once.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!edited 27th Feb '13 11:02:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016It looks like the Supreme Court might remove the Voting Rights Act. All five conservative judges seem set on striking it down.
For those unaware, the VRA essentially clamps down on voting systems in certain places with a history of racial discrimination in elections. However, Scalia claims that the VRA "perpetuates racial entitlement." Are you kidding me?
edited 28th Feb '13 12:06:34 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Hell no. If that happens I will write every angry letter, every petition, every protest, every form of democratic rallying to get any justice that votes for that impeached. Source?
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing."Racial entitlement," Scalia says. He said that the Voting Rights Act had created "black districts by law."
"Times change," Kennedy says. Except when it concerns the 2nd Amendment, right, Kennedy?
edited 28th Feb '13 12:13:41 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.And of course we can't impeach Scalia now... Not when even necessary laws are stonewalled in the House. I'm wondering how much support a 21 year old New Yorker can drum against this BS.]
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.Stuff like this is why I do not like any of the conservative judges.
Look at Roberts. Yeah, fine, he voted for the (pro-corporate) Affordable Care Act, but he's also the one apparently spearheading this anti-VRA crusade.
Unfortunately, if all five conservative judges are set on removing it, we can't do a thing.
edited 28th Feb '13 12:21:26 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Not hugely hypocritical, given that one is a piece of legislation and another part of the Constitution. Still mistaken, of course, but not hypocritical.
The Second Amendment is itself badly drafted, in that its actual operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is out of proportion to its pre-amble ("a well-regulated militia being necessary" etc), meaning that its legal meaning is unclear.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAw fuck, Kennedy is voting against it? Sh*t.
Just to be clear this will only nullify Section 5 (Preclearance), right? The rest of the bill will be intact?
Puerto Rico Governor’s Pension Plan raises Retirement Age
edited 28th Feb '13 1:07:31 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Only Section Five, that I know of.
Section 5 was what blocked photo ID laws in South Carolina and Texas. It also blocked cutbacks to early voting in Florida. The conservative judges wanna remove that provision because it's "outdated."
edited 28th Feb '13 1:27:08 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.The original draft of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:
The origin and intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear, going through the history of the various drafts as they get progressively shorter and shorter to condense the thing. There are two parts to the 2nd Amendment, not one, no matter which side is saying what. And it's the condensed version that was ratified that is bringing up so many problems because it no longer seems clear.
As for the VRA, I -think- I understand what they're getting at, but the Justices are not exactly being graceful, especially that Scalia guy.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Thanks for that clear-up on the 2nd Amendment. It's important to note that it was changed to make it deliberately vague.
On the Justices, let's be real here. They're only using the "outdated" thing as an excuse to allow voter ID laws and cutbacks to early voting. The less minority votes - hell, the less votes in general, the more Republicans in office.
The fact that only the conservative judges are in favor of striking it down is very telling.
edited 28th Feb '13 1:44:35 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Dunno if it's deliberately vague, but they certainly streamlined it to the point that it no longer conveys the same understanding to a modern reader. I have a strong suspicion that Congress at the time understood it precisely, whatever that might have been, but that understanding is lost to us now.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!@Serocco
I had written a long post explaining the interpretative conflicts surrounding the Second Amendment, but then I accidentally pressed back on my browser and it ate the whole thing.
EDIT: Devil Take Me said it better anyway.
I'll respond to the SCOTUS vs the VRA controversy:
Either the anti-VRA justices sincerely believe that there is no further need for the Act, they are motivated by overt racism, or they are so partisan as not to care about the risks in the face of the possibility that team R can gain an advantage. If they believe the first option, they are so ill-informed that they are, in my eyes, unworthy to be SC justices. If they believe the second option, they are also unfit, and if they believe the third option they are making partisan judgements unrelated to the facts or the substantive law, which is par-for-the-course at SCOTUS but hardly justified because of that. I am inclined to believe that the first and third options are most likely, though Scalia's "racial entitlement" buffoonery makes me wonder.
Furthermore, the comments by the anti-VRA justices show the dysfunction and the narcissism of the modern SCOTUS.
Look at what Scalia said during the case:
Justice Kennedy said that "Times change." Even if we accept that is true (which it is not), it is not Scalia or Kennedy's job to give political advice or to correct the many wrongs of America's voting system unless they contradict the Constitution. That is the function of the legislative branch. What Scalia is doing here is explicitly referring to considerations of policy to support his "we must overturn" proposition, which he cannot do. Although justices have a limited right to interpret legislation so as to give effect to considerations of public policy, what Scalia and Kennnedy seek to do is arrogate to the Supremes the function of legislative branch as well. This is flagrantly ultra vires and completely unsupported by the law.
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor pretty adeptly dismantled the anti-VRA case yesterday anyhow.
edited 28th Feb '13 2:09:58 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei

So were horses eating fire hydrants a problem? What were the hydrants made out of, hay?
EDIT: Nonsensical page-topper ahoy!
edited 27th Feb '13 8:52:53 PM by Zendervai