The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

The war on drugs is an absolute joke. Internationally, it's losing serious credibility. It's costing governments far more than it should to enforce, and nobody's winning.

 

Hear, hear. It's said that between economic growth and reduced policing, we'd get about 60 billion dollars in increased economic activity. It would also enormously expand personal freedom.

 

When you consider marijuana and all those drugs were legal at one point, but were illegalised because of the power of the Christian Right and textile companies... you really question their actual effectiveness. They were never criminalised because of widespread abuse or anything of the sort; they were made illegal for being "immoral" and competing with established companies.

 

They could just stop locking people up for doing drugs...

 

This would be a definite start.

 

Though we would also need to take funding for education out of the states' hands; as is the local control of funding is costing us greatly, and leading to neighborhoods that fall enormously behind others and become dens of crime due to less opportunities.

 

As for the topic of crime more specifically... I'm tacking this on as another example of my disdain for organised labor. The police agencies get a generous amount of funding for the war on drugs, so they rally to prevent reform. The same way lawyers and accountants are going to stand strong against making taxes easier to do, or how auto workers are going to stand against getting cheaper goods into our markets.

 

Really this is all really just cementing my belief in weakening any and all forms of lobbying on the government. I don't care if it's from corporations, labor unions or anything else - it's all special interests and the government should not be beholden to anything but the country's future and its people.

[-Robin-]

Today marks the beginning of the DOMA/Prop 8 Supreme Court cases. Prop 8 will be discussed today, and DOMA tomorrow.

Already, Justice Kennedy, the likely swing vote, has mentioned that Prop 8 causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex couples.

A pivotal justice questioned California’s ban on same-sex marriage as the U.S. Supreme Court began a historic argument that could lead to gay weddings nationwide.

During early questioning in the hour-long argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that children of same-sex couples suffer “immediate legal injury” from California’s ban.

“They want their parents to have full recognition and status,” Kennedy said. “The voice of those children” is important, he said.

The California case has the potential to produce the court’s biggest civil rights ruling in decades. The argument comes as public support for gay marriage hits record levels. Nine states and the District of Columbia now let gay couples marry.

The high court, which will rule by June, has a spectrum of options. It could reinstate California’s ban and leave each state to make its own decision about letting gays marry. It could issue a narrow ruling that would create a right to same- sex marriage in California and perhaps a handful of other states. Or it could announce a constitutional right to gay marriage nationwide.

Attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the proponents of the ban, said attitudes on gay marriage are changing rapidly, and he urged the justices to let that debate continue on the state level instead of declaring a broad right to gay marriage.

‘Considerable Disagreement’

Justice Antonin Scalia said there is “considerable disagreement” over the effects on children of having same-sex parents.

“Do you know the answer to that, whether it harms or helps the child?” Scalia said, suggesting it would be premature for the court to set a nationwide rule. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not.”

The case is the first of two gay-marriage arguments this week for the court, which tomorrow will take up the 1996 U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. That law defines marriage as a heterosexual institution, barring legally married gay couples from claiming the federal benefits available to other married couples.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/justice-kennedy-questions-california-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html

[Patticus]

Children of same sex couples are no better or worse off than those of opposite sex couples. Common sense would assume that children raised by same sex couples will probably, by and large, be far less likely to wind up bigoted dick homophobes, and will probably in all other respects grow up to be much the same as those who grew up with hetero parents, which can only be a good thing. If Scalia can't see that, well, why the hell is he even there.

 

I really hope that they'll see sense.

[Tornado]

Thomas is the one you have to worry about. Not Scalia.

[turbojet]

As correct as you are in regards of Thomas, Scalia dictates the Conservative part of the Supreme Court. When he calls the Voting Rights Act a perpetuation of racial entitlement, he is a problem.  Both he and Thomas are originalists, in by that I mean they claim to say that they use the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution in regards to their judgements and interpretations of Constitution Law, and that in of itself is counterproductive to gay marriage as the American founders were huge homophobes and thus it could be argued that the 14th Amendment does not extend to them.

[Tornado]

Scalia is also the one far more likely to accept evidence that goes against his initial notion than Thomas is. Look at that stupid ESA vs. California case from a couple years ago. Scalia even penned the majority opinion, saying (roughly) that video games are protected free speech and there is no evidence to say that they legally shouldn't be just because children can get them. Breyer disagreed, but really only because he didn't think there was enough information to explain why.

 

Thomas said "Fuck that noise. Save the children and censor that shit."

 

 

 

 

My point isn't that Scalia isn't going to be against it to begin with, because he most likely is. My point is, if it comes down to a 4:4 split, Scalia would be much more likely to vote that DoMA is Unconstitutional if he felt he was proven wrong (and I'm aware that that is a battle in and of itself); but Thomas would say fuck it and say it's acceptable anyway.

[turbojet]

Thomas's dissent in the EMA case was absurd, yes. I had to read it because one of my fellow students was abhorred when I called Thomas one of the dullest minds on the court. He pointed to that case and,lo and behold, it was Thomas espousing my belief about everything that is wrong about this way of interpreting the Constitution.

 

Regardless, Thomas is a non-factor because he won't be swayed either way. He can't be convinced at all. He is on justice that wont even bother seeing the other side of the party line. Scalia, on the other hand, is fucking terrified of homosexuals and has said so(which is a wonder why he hasn't recused himself). While Thomas is a blowhard, Scalia is definitely the one worth worrying about.

[Tani Coyote]

It's gonna be a tight vote, certainly...

 

If gay marriage bans are deemed unconstitutional, doesn't that invalidate like half the state constitutions? State constitutions are ultimately bound by the same rules as the US Constitution as memory serves, so this raises a question...

 

I can see all the threats of secession by the right-wing states already...

 

...not that they'd go through with them. Red states are on average net recipients of federal funds. They're full of hot air when they cry secession.

[Patticus]

Childish tantrums involving cries of secession will probably indeed echo across the land if LGBT marriage bans are deemed unconstitutional, but they'll only truly be heard by far-right nutcases and the more dangerously unhinged GOP hawks.
 
 
In other news, which is sure to be swept away underneath a barrage of LGBT decision-making huzzahs/boos, Delaware's senate has voted to repeal that state's death penalty:
 

Dear Friend,

Just moments ago, we achieved another major victory — the Delaware Senate voted to repeal the state’s death penalty!

On the heels of our momentous victory in Maryland, momentum for repeal is increasing in Delaware and elsewhere across the country. The next step is for the bill to move to the Delaware House soon after the session resumes on April 16.

There is still a lot of work to do, and with your help, we will continue to support our partners in Delaware - the Delaware Repeal Project and all of its allies.

Today's vote by the Senate is a major step toward bringing Delaware closer to becoming the SEVENTH state in six years to abandon the death penalty!  We couldn't have gotten here without the backing of friends like you.

Because of your support, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty has been on the ground in Delaware before this campaign began two years ago.

By bringing our national strength to key statewide efforts, we are helping move the United States closer to complete abolition of the death penalty.

Just weeks after victory in Maryland, winning abolition in Delaware will increase the momentum we’ll need for other legislative battles for repeal this year and beyond in states like Colorado, New Hampshire, Kansas, Washington, Nebraska and more! 

We can’t do it without you.

Yours in peace and justice,

Diann Rust-Tierney
Executive Director
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

PS: If you have not done so yet, please take a moment to thank Governor O'Malley in Maryland for his leadership in repealing the death penalty in his state.

 

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/206/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1271208

 

Let's Celebrate Good Times Come On

[Autosaver]

For the war on drugs, I think it's necessary for the more extreme drugs.

 

For some reason, a lot of people just think drug war = weed. Well, I totally agree that weed should be legal.

[Patticus]

The most dangerous drugs do need to remain outlawed and criminalized, but then again I don't think anyone was ever suggesting that, say, Crystal Meth, be legalized. There's no impetus for that at all.

[Tornado]

For the war on drugs, I think it's necessary for the more extreme drugs.

 

For some reason, a lot of people just think drug war = weed. Well, I totally agree that weed should be legal.

 

You want to lock people up for drug related crimes, lock up the drug dealers and manufacturers. Throwing around the kind of prison sentences that get used in response to personal drug use before too long devolves into locking people up for being poor (or, if you want to be even more cynical, for being poor and black).

[turbojet]

If anything, we are saying that the Drug War is nothing, but a thinly veiled racist law that incarcerates and criminalizes young black men intentionally. Which is true.

And to put a cherry on top of the cynical pie...

Edited March 27, 2013 by turbojet

[SenEDDtor Missile]

If anything, we are saying that the Drug War is nothing, but a thinly veiled racist law that incarcerates and criminalizes young black men intentionally. Which is true.

Blame the old white guys and the people they control/influence, who thrived during an era when a woman could be brutalized and they would get off scot free, when minorities were considered even more sub-human then they are right now (it still exists, you and I know that) and they could get away with murdering a minority, and where you were considered God's gift to the world if you were a white man with a raging hard-on for the most bigoted and darkest part of a religion that is SUPPOSED to stand for goodness and charity, but are twisted for their own selfish purposes. Get these guys out of the way and things would probably be A LOT easier. Not perfect, but more manageable I'd imagine.

[turbojet]

...Why do people act like my avatar is not symbolic of my personality and political beliefs, Tornado?

 

I'm pretty sure that I've said Malcolm X was my hero a few times on this board.

[Tani Coyote]

Good to see the road to a repeal of the death penalty; capital punishment is both expensive and has a high chance of throwing innocents under the bus. This is the antithesis of the due process system. I don't care about murderers getting executed personally; my gripe is with the practical applications of the death penalty. Never mind the fact it puts us in league with Arabia, China and Iran.

 

As for drugs: all drug use should most definitely be decriminalised if not legalised. Addicts need help, not time in a cell surrounded by murderers and thugs. Manufacturing, I can see the argument for keeping some types illegal, but as for actual use? That you have to spend time in prison for something you do to your own body repulses me.

 

As for black offenders being disproportionate: there's a very simple explanation for this. Black neighborhoods are often poor and have minimal opportunities due to poorly funded schools (some moron sometime in the past decided that schools should be funded by property taxes). This is part of the lasting legacy of racism from the mid-1900s, where many white neighborhoods barred blacks from moving in, keeping the black population by extension in crowded, low-valued neighborhoods.

 

Anyway, such poor opportunities will inevitably lead to a life of crime for some (the most common repeat offenses are property crime), and many people who would be law-abiding citizens will find themselves sucked in to this due to the environment. People with capital will not want to invest in a high-crime area, further ruining the ability for people to get by in these neighborhoods.

 

In addition, poverty tends to take its toll on the family unit, greatly impacting the moral development of people. On top of all this, judges and juries normally look at prior offenses when deciding sentencing; logically with recidivism most common with property crimes, the poorest group (which is blacks) will get hit with the brunt of the penalties. Net result: denied opportunities and a bleak upbringing for many African-American citizens ultimately will lead to a very disproportionate amount of blacks in prison for the various offenses.

 

I don't see racism when I look at crime statistics; I see the tragedy of our education and economic systems.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Dude, racism is definitely a major factor in those statistics. When you see such disproportionate numbers skew so high for one group, it's hard for it not to be anything else and if anything it would be naive not to keep that in consideration, even with educational and economic problems in conjunction with them.

Edited March 27, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tani Coyote]

While racism certainly still exists, I'm still inclined to think a lot of the current problems facing minorities is just fiscal conservatism getting in the way of correcting racist wrongs of the past. We can't fix the education system with standard funding because that would be be unconstitutional. We can't establish a guaranteed minimum income because that would be socialism. We can't lessen the penalties for non-violent crimes because that would mean we're being soft on it.

 

The net result of all these policies is that they prevent us from remedying a situation that began in racism, and only further compound it. Minorities were forced to live in cramped, low opportunity conditions due to the racist policies of property owners and government officials in the past, and even if those latter two groups have gotten rid of most of their racist leaning, they're still unwilling to do anything to fix the effects of racism.

 

Point in all this being that racism, while undesirable, isn't the crux of the issue. It doesn't matter if we're all fully egalitarian in philosophy if we're not going to be supportive of better schooling or cash transfers.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

More crap to screw over the internet.

[Patticus]

Justice Thomas had best not screw up the whole "let's render half the states' constitutions void" parade. He does remember that his own interracial marriage would have been illegal across much of the US several decades ago, right?

Same shit, different day.

[turbojet]

Justice Thomas had best not screw up the whole "let's render half the states' constitutions void" parade. He does remember that his own interracial marriage would have been illegal across much of the US several decades ago, right?

Same shit, different day.

I think Justice Thomas believes he is white like Uncle Ruckus. As a matter of fact, he looks an awfully like Uncle Ruckus.

[Tani Coyote]

More crap to screw over the internet.

 

Oh, harsher prison penalties. Joy. America, land of the free, home of the highest incarcerated population in the world.

 

Justice Thomas had best not screw up the whole "let's render half the states' constitutions void" parade. He does remember that his own interracial marriage would have been illegal across much of the US several decades ago, right?

Same shit, different day.

 

Problem is social conservatives view race and sexuality as different from a moral perspective (trust me, I've argued with far too many on this exact same subject). Not only is race visible and orientation not, but there's also the fact race generally isn't called out in religious texts, whereas sexual preference most definitely is.

 

Let's not even get into the fact the Bible doesn't technically prohibit lesbian relations... fundamentalism is a fun ideology because it rapidly falls apart at the slightest exception to the literal interpretation.

 

To be a Devil's Advocate, let's try and put this in the conservatives' perspective: why do we stand for gay rights but not for the rights of the incestuous? Gay rights is increasingly viewed as acceptable, but by a large margin society feels incest is immoral and improper. Barring the higher risk of children with deformities, exactly what's wrong with it from a logical perspective, though?

 

With that example (as drastic as it is), I think it's easy to see how the rights of one type of coupling can be seen as god-given, whereas the rights of another are not.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[turbojet]

While all the hoopla about gays getting married is justified, the Monsanto Protection Act passed without much deliberation.

 

 

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

 

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

 

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

 

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

 

As the US legal system functions today, and largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the USDA is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

 

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

 

Previously discovered pathogens in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soy are suspected of causing infertility in livestock and to impact the health of plants.

 

So, just how much of a victory is this for biotech companies like Monsanto? Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a “backroom deal” with the biotech industry.

 

As the Washington Times points out, the provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

It remains unclear whether the bill’s six-month expiration means that the provision will be short-lived. Regardless, Food Democracy Now has begun a campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to veto the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which seems unlikely as HR 933 includes a sweeping amount of government funding.

So an agricultural monopoly gets even more liberties and funding despite the food being harmful. 

[Patticus]

Monsanto should really be forcibly broken up. It's monopoly is far too big now, surely? Isn't there some sort of anti-trust case that can be brought against it, similarly to ones brought against Microsoft in the last decade?

[Tani Coyote]

Monopolies should always be broken up for the sake of product quality.

 

As for restricting the ability of the federal government to hamper GM planting, well that really is a gray area. On one hand that could introduce some health risks, but on the other federal regulations can be like a noose around the creation of newer, more effective goods and services.

 

Even if the GM crop has some harmful effect, that can surely be vetted down the line by the FDA, can't it? You have to meet safety standards... so it doesn't matter how much of your plant you've sown the soil with; if it's not safe to eat it's not going to market. Inevitably this will lead to self-regulation as companies need to turn a profit and thus need to go through the FDA; the main reason companies had abusive food practices in the past was there was not a SINGLE regulation preventing the sale of rotten or spoiled products. The FDA takes care of that, and presumably can cover food safety as well.