Here we go again.
Recently in Politics Category
Here we go again.
The technique I have always thought should be used more often is to tell the filibusterers, "Fine. Stall as long as you want. By the way, the vote on something you want very much will be taken after the vote on the bill you are filibustering."
So, there is a bill in the Senate to combat human trafficking. Who can be against that, right? Well, there is a provision in the bill extending the Hyde Amendment prohibition on use of federal funds for abortion. (CJLF takes no position on this.) Democrats are filibustering the bill. Sen. McConnell is putting off the vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch.
[There are] several responses to the DOJ's attack on Ferguson's enforcement of its ordinances pertaining to matters such as parking. First, it is none of the federal government's business. The price of a parking ticket and the penalties for not paying them on time are issues of purely local concern.
Second, there is no basis for inferring racism from Ferguson's parking enforcement practices. Cities and municipalities throughout the nation generate revenue from the policing of parking violations and the like.
For example, Washington, DC, whose government is run by African-American officials, raises a significant amount of revenue by ticketing parking violators, including a large number of white suburbanites who park in the District (me, for example). This isn't racism or even anti-suburban bias. It's not personal; it's just business.
Third, there's an easy way to thwart "revenue generation through policing." Obey the parking rules and other municipal ordinances, and don't exceed the speed limit. In the event of a violation, pay your fine on time and don't blow off any court appearances. Is this too much to ask?
If Senators Rand Paul and Corey Booker have had anything to say about the Big Government absurdity of federal clucking about parking tickets, I haven't seen it. Federalism, it seems, is a sometime thing.
The state House deadlocked Monday 50-50 on a bill to abolish the death penalty in Montana, likely killing the measure for the 2015 Legislature.While the vote is welcome, it is unfortunate and worrisome that they got that close. Repeal supporters have swung marginal votes with arguments that the process takes too long and costs too much, when the obvious answer is to make in faster and, in the process, cheaper.* * *Monday's vote fell largely along party lines, with most Republicans against it - but it took three of the House's 41 Democrats voting "no" to reject the bill, which would abolish the death penalty in Montana and substitute it with life in prison without parole. Montana has two murderers on death row.
The way to make review of death penalty cases faster and cheaper while making it more reliable with regard to genuine miscarriages of justice is to limit all repeated reviews, after the first full round of review, to questions with some bearing on actual innocence.
Kitzhauber's December 6, 2011 reprieve, quoted in the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in Haugen v. Kitzhaber, S060761 (June 20, 2013), reads,
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Article V, Section 14 of the Oregon Constitution, I, John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor of the State of Oregon, hereby grant Gary D. Haugen a temporary reprieve of the aforementioned death sentence for the duration of my service as Governor.The duration of his service is over. The reprieve is over. What next?
The new Governor, until-today Secretary of State Kate Brown, can and should allow the law to take its course. The primary thing wrong with the death penalty is that the judgments take too long to carry out. Imposing a moratorium as a remedy makes no more sense than the nineteenth-century doctors bleeding patients as a remedy.
But will she?
There is a recurrent fantasy within the Obama administration that they could get away with anything, if only that damn Fox News would shut up. Well, sometimes that could be true. But other times, it's delusional. Like when Eric Holder blamed Fox News for Islamic radicalism:
Whenever you're getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you're probably getting it right. We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really. If Fox didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me.
Sure. It's not the beheadings, the burning alive, the selling of women into slavery, the parading of prisoners in cages that has people concerned about Islamic extremism. It's not reality, it's Fox News! But what is Holder's point? Why is the administration so allergic to acknowledging that the terrorists who are wreaking havoc are Islamic radicals?
Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I'm not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn't have any impact on our military posture; it doesn't have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place.
As if we had a policy in place to put these ISIS savages out of business.
Mr. Grassley [Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee], for reasons that defy basic fairness and empirical data, has remained an opponent of almost any reduction of [federal] sentences. In a speech from the Senate floor this month, he called the bills "lenient and, frankly, dangerous," and he raised the specter of high-level drug traffickers spilling onto the streets.
Mr. Grassley is as mistaken as he is powerful. Mandatory minimums have, in fact, been used to punish many lower-level offenders who were not their intended targets. Meanwhile, the persistent fantasy that locking up more people leads to less crime continues to be debunked. States from California to New York to Texas have reduced prison populations and crime rates at the same time. A report released last week by the Brennan Center for Justice found that since 2000 putting more people behind bars has had essentially no effect on the national crime rate.
The Times's claim about the "persistent fantasy" that increased incarceration produces less crime is stupid, dishonest and false.
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber announced his resignation Friday, after alleged ethical breaches involving his fiancee prompted a criminal investigation.
Just months after being re-elected to a fourth term, Mr. Kitzhaber, a 67-year-old Democrat, bowed to mounting pressure to resign after media reports that his fiancee, first lady Cylvia Hayes, was allegedly being paid to represent an array of interest groups at the same time she was helping formulate policies in his administration that involved those groups.
Oregon has no office of lieutenant governor, so Mr. Kitzhaber will be succeeded by another Democrat, Secretary of State Kate Brown.
The Wall Street Journal has the story.
I really can't blame her. If I had to listen to President Obama for an hour, I would want a snort or three myself. Scalia, J., concurs.
See also this article at the Washington CBS affiliate and this article by Robert Barnes at the WaPo.
Oregon has no lieutenant governor, a wise choice. The Secretary of State is next in line. As I read Article V § 8a of the Oregon Constitution, it seems to say that the SecState would serve until "the next biennial election," in which a Governor would be elected to serve out the last two years of Kitzhaber's term. The section is not a model of draftsmanship, though.
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber is facing a mounting political crisis, as influence-peddling allegations involving his fiancée have spurred a criminal investigation by the state's attorney general and calls for his resignation from leaders of his own Democratic Party.
Just months after being re-elected to a record fourth term, Mr. Kitzhaber is under pressure to step down following media reports that his fiancée, first lady Cylvia Hayes, was being paid to represent an array of interest groups at the same time that she was helping formulate policies in his administration that involved those groups.
Section 14 does not have any limitations on the commutation power for murder, so he could pull a Ryan and clear out death row before going to jail or wherever he is going after the governor's office.
I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are extraordinarily heinous crimes, terrorism, the harm of children, in which it may be appropriate. Obviously we've had some problems in this state, in the application of the death penalty and that's why a moratorium was put in place and that's why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in making sure that we overhauled it, death penalty system that was broken. For example, passing the first in the nation videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. We have to have this ultimate sanction for certain circumstances in which the entire community says this is beyond the pale.