All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[WestPhillyPunisher]

They are right about everyone being afraid. The city is even still recovering from the damage down when everything popped off last year; the lockdown from Covid I'm sure unfortunately slowed that recovery down. The one-two punch of the damage from the arson and riots, then economic impact of Covid costing so many jobs has also seen crime skyrocket ... Daunte Wright's murder already tipped the scales into unrest. But I have little doubt that the reason they were able to deploy the national guard so quickly for all of that is because they were already prepared for rioting over the Chauvin trial.

But like I said before, everyone would not be on edge, and we would not already have the Guard deployed in our streets ... just hanging out in armored vehicles and full gear, all day, meanwhile the city shuts down in unofficial curfew every night, following the officially mandated curfew nights ... if there was any kind of faith Chauvin will not be acquitted. The prosecution made a strong case, and I was momentarily reassured to see police testifying against Chauvin. Unfortunately, if anything actually was decided beforehand, it's that cops can all too easily get away with literal murder, even when it is caught on camera.

It sounds crazy where you are. Please, stay safe.

Meanwhile, here in Philly, the supermarket I regularly shop at half a mile from my house put up the plywood on its windows. Can't say I'm surprised since my neighborhood got hit plenty hard by rioting and looting a year ago, I'm sure businesses from coast to coast will be going into board up mode as a hedge against a repeat performance should Chauvin be acquitted. The whole damn country will be nervous awaiting the verdict.

[Mister Mets]

I'm working out some general ideas for police reform and I'd like to share what I have so far. Feel free to comment or make suggestions. Once it is completed, I might do something with it. Publish it or send a copy to Senators or something like that.

One of several key factors I am working towards is taking police out of situations where they really aren't needed, where alternative options are available.

Police Reform Ideas - first draft

• Police need a standardized training program with guidelines defined at the federal level.
• Police need more training, better training. Especially in how to de-escalate situations and how to respond without the use of force, violence, or any other similar means.
• Police equipment and weaponry should be standardized and limited to the minimum for what is needed at any one time. Military-style equipment or other weaponry in excess of what is needed to do their job should be disposed of.
• An independent police review board should review all issues relating to police officer conduct, from the use of firearms and excessive use of force to violations of department policy to complaints by the public to possible violations of the law.
• A Three Strike rule regarding reports of overuse of violence, complaints against them by the public, actions that go against police department rules, or other violations, should be applied to all police officers. Two strikes and they are placed immediately on desk duty until a review is conducted of their actions. Three strikes and they are subject to firing if the allegations against them are proven.
• A national police database should be established by the DOJ and include all information/data on crime, violence, as well as information on police officers whose employment has been terminated due to misconduct or overuse of violence.
• A national standard should be set for training police dispatchers.
• Additional special phone numbers should be created nationally, each one clearly defined by its purpose. 411 for general information, 911 for police emergencies, 811 for Fire and other related emergencies, 711 for medical emergencies, 611 for mental health or domestic situations, and 511 for all other calls or when the caller is not sure who to call for help.
• Programs need to be set up so that the police do not have to respond to every situation so that there are others ready to respond to non-violent, domestic, social, or other calls.
• The culture of having minor laws on the books for the sole purpose of raising cash through fines should be ended. If there is a situation where a person is performing an act (like selling something on a street corner) in violation of local or state laws, the person should be identified and sent a letter stating that they need to appear in court to respond to the violation. A small court judge will then decide if the person should be fined for their actions.
• Police should be trained to not stop every car that has a minor violation, that they can run license plates if there is a suspicion of a problem, then report the car if there isn’t anything serious like the possibility of the car being stolen. All non-criminal and non-dangerous infractions, such as expire plates, broken headlights, speeding less than 5 MPH over the speed limit, and so on should be referred to a traffic violations division. Violations can be handled by sending out warnings or letters of violations to the owner of the car through the mail.
• Police should only pull over cars if they run the plates and find that the car is stolen if the driver is driving at excessive and dangerous speeds, if there is a warrant for the arrest of the car owner, or if the driver is driving recklessly and endangering other drivers, or if the car has no plates visible anywhere on the car.
• Police and community programs should be created to allow the police to get to know the members of their community, and for the community to get to know the police officers.
• Gun control laws should be tightened so as to remove some of the inherent risks to police officers.
• police officers should be trained to deal with the threat of violence uniformly regardless of the situation and to de-escalate it whenever possible.
• When police are called on to perform crowd control roles, they should understand the possible threat and act only as needed. Police should not engage unless a situation turns violent, unless they are attacked, or unless the property is being destroyed or stolen. They should be authorized to only arrest those who carry weapons, commit crimes, or acts of violence. At no time should police engage in dispersal tactics. If there is an announced curfew, it should be announced to those present. If they remain peaceful, they should not be forced out. It is up to local leaders to press the attendees to retire for the night.
• Children should always be treated differently than adults regardless of whatever potential crime they may be involved in. Police should never draw weapons, tasers, pepper spray, or other use of force against a minor.

I completely understand that these are some ideas by someone who is not a professional lawmaker, although on that level, it is thoughtful and informed. It is one of my favorite posts from the political threads.

One thing to consider is the potential unintended consequences.

With federal standards there will need to be someone who enforces the rules and investigates these. This can lead to some pushback. We could also easily imagine a presidential administration that is very pro-cop having much lower standards than a progressive state government, although the federal standards could at least be a baseline. There is a potential complication when you have top-down directives that apply to all communities, be it a city with ridiculously high rent, a college town, or a lightly populated rural county.

I'm not sure the problem is one of a lack of training, as much as some cops failing to take it seriously. More training could very well be redundant, although there are some ways to square the circle, like requiring cops to take tests to make sure they understand the trending.

The idea that equipment should be the minimum of what is needed at any time (which leaves them with one option for each situation) is rather limited. It takes away choice, and probably makes things really expensive, requiring every officer to have all these tools available.

Should the independent police board be local, statewide or federal? What kind of subpoena powers will they have? How time consuming should the investigations be? That can be complicated.

I was worried the three strikes rule might have disproportionate results, if all that matters is that there is a complaint (cops would be worse off if they work in areas where there are a lot of BS complaints) but it's less of an issue if it's three findings of wrongdoing. There are still be some complications if we don't take into account the realities of the job, and standard imperfections (IE- if paperwork mistakes most cops make at least once an year become part o the three strikes.)

The national database could be useful, given all the officers fired in one jurisdiction who go elsewhere. I do worry that one likely result is less honest explanations of why cops left one region. There might need to be mechanisms to prevent anyone filing the paperwork from coming up with a face-saving alternative explanation.

I don't think the multiple numbers for calls works. Some regions will have more limited resources. There would also likely be some wrong numbers if 911 is only for police. How long will it take people to internalize that they should call 811 for fire, and 711 for medical? Is this something kids or tourists can learn? There is also the reality that many situations involve multiple emergency agencies. If a building catches fire that could necessitate firefighters and ambulances. In addition, one serious problem is that there are too many civilians who call for the police when it's not necessary, and this doesn't address that. Civilians aren't going to do a great job of recognizing when mental health professional sare needed.

I definitely agree we should eliminate the idea of having fines mainly to raise cash. There can specifically be some systems in place to reverse that. However, a truth is that many of these laws exist for a reason. We don't always want someone to set up a bazaar on city streets, and sending a letter means the problem isn't resolved quickly.

If the police don't respond to minor violations, there will be delays in people learning of potentially serious problems, to say nothing of the possibility they'll get fined multiple times for the same offense.

I certainly agree on the need for clear standards on when to pull over cars. Even if there may be one or two other situations which merit it, clear standards can be good. I have no problem with getting rid of pretext stops.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/*******...-lawmakers-say

One potential problem with making it up to local leaders to enforce a curfew is that they have no authority to back up their requests.

An absolute standard against using force on a minor is likely to backfire when teenagers commit serious crimes.

I wish the legislators dealing with the issue put the same amount of thought into their comments and proposals as you did here.

[Adam Allen]

It sounds crazy where you are. Please, stay safe.

Meanwhile, here in Philly, the supermarket I regularly shop at half a mile from my house put up the plywood on its windows. Can't say I'm surprised since my neighborhood got hit plenty hard by rioting and looting a year ago, I'm sure businesses from coast to coast will be going into board up mode as a hedge against a repeat performance should Chauvin be acquitted. The whole damn country will be nervous awaiting the verdict.

Thanks, man. Yeah, I'm sure I will be okay -- no reason I would be any specific target, and no plans to get out into the mayhem if it starts up, so not so much worried for myself. I love my town though, and there's a lot of people a lot more vulnerable than me, so ... yeah, just really hoping the verdict goes the way it rightfully should!

And yeah, the plywood look has been the default decor around these parts for about a year now. And of course, very much become just all the rage everywhere, in the last week. Here is hoping it's something we all see less of, going forward.

[Tami]

Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments for justices

A majority of Americans want to end lifetime appointments for U.S. Supreme Court justices, according to an Ipsos poll for Reuters, though less than half are in favor of other efforts to reform the judiciary.

The national opinion poll, conducted on Thursday and Friday, found that 63 percent of adults supported term or age limits for Supreme Court justices. Another 22 percent said they opposed any limits and the rest did not express an opinion.

The poll also found that only 38 percent would support expanding the size of the court by adding four more justices. Another 42 percent said they would oppose doing so and the rest were unsure.

Liberal activists and some legal scholars have been pushing for judicial reforms as Republican leaders in Congress built a 6-to-3 conservative Supreme Court majority over the past several years, in part by blocking a Democratic nominee and allowing Republican former President Donald Trump to install three picks during his single term.

[worstblogever]

In both 2015 and 2016 on this date, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Milton Wolf, a man who was somehow a legitimate Tea Party challenger to Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas in the 2014 mid-term elections, which is amazing considering he's President Obama's second cousin. Mind you, blood is not thicker than water between the POTUS and Wolf, who publicly lambasted the Affordable Care Act, compared Obama to King George III of England, said the USDA were hoarding assault rifles in some sort of sinister plot they were going to carry out, tried to gin up support by perpetuating the right-wing myth of "Obama phones" and claims as a result he was vindictively audited by the IRS for being too critical of the president. Wolf had a highly radical agenda as a candidate, wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, abolish the IRS, close off our borders, and completely ban abortion. While he did come within surprising striking distance of Pat Roberts at the polls, he came up short after being caught trying to pander to gun enthusiasts by buying a lifetime membership to the NRA and a semi-automatic rifle (but sending the dealer a thank you note for helping get him into the "big black scary gun community"), and more importantly, having it revealed by the Roberts campaign that he had the nasty habit of, at his day job as a radiologist, leaking X-Rays from patients on social media where he'd make jokes about their injuries. Wolf was rumored to be considering a challenge in 2016 to Sen. Jerry Moran (he ambushed Moran at a town hall), or perhaps making an attempt at taking the U.S. House seat of Kevin Yoder, but instead, chose to sit things out.

On this date in 2017, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled Gia Arnold, a former Tea Party candidate for New York State Senate, who tried using that momentum to get elected in 2014, probably about four years later than if it actually would have been a benefit to her. Making matters difficult was that the 24-year-old Arnold, who was hell bent on getting New York’s assault weapons ban overturned, and was running almost solely on that issue. This, not long after the Newtown Massacre, and a wave of gun violence across the country, mind you, and in a blue state where people are fine with gun control. Her efforts were hampered when she managed to have it leak to the public that she had an extramarital affair in April of 2014 (while campaigning), dropped out of the race after confessing to infidelity, but then after a few days she changed her mind and jumping back in. She claimed people in her district took no issue with her affair, and were begging her to stay in the race. She may have been exaggerating, because she got crushed by over fifty points in the GOP Primary for that seat. In and of itself, that is a strange series of events. But then the saga of Gia Arnold got weirder. About a year and a half after her campaign fizzled, she made headlines again for a decidedly different reason… Arnold and her 18-year-old boyfriend got arrested near the U.S./Canada border near Niagra Falls in February of 2016 with a whole arsenal of assault weapons in her car. A spokesman for her again railed against New York’s assault weapon ban, and claimed the duo was stopped because her boyfriend was racially profiled, which is about the only time we’ve ever heard a Republican admit law enforcement would do such a thing. Arnold was indicted in July of 2016, and eventually sentenced to five years of probation (rather generous). That criminal history makes her an unlikely candidate to win office.

On this date in 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiled former Oregon State Senator Jeff Kruse, who had hung around the Oregon state legislature overall since 1996. While Kruse spent his last few years in office voting to try and stop Oregon Democrats from doing sensible things like attempt to ban gay conversion therapy on minors, or raise the minimum wage, he also sponsored SB 215, a bill created to allow state high schools to continue the practice of using Native American themed mascots, because he cares that much about being able to subtely project racist iconography at indigenous people. But how Kruse truly earned a CSGOPOTD profile was because he had a long history of sexually harassing women around the capitol, repeatedly groping, touching, and giving unwanted hugs to women over his decades long tenure.

On this date in 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Cliff Rosenberger, a former House Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives who served in office as a state legislator from 2010-2018. Rosenberger rose to the role of Speaker by his third term in office in 2015, becoming the youngest person ever to hold that position before an abrupt end to his career sent shockwaves through Buckeye State politics. Let’s first cover his voting record and general statements… Rosenberger openly criticized Barack Obama’s brilliant initiative to have two years of paid college tuition for American students, would sponsor extreme anti-Choice legislation like fetal heartbeat bills, had an A rating from the NRA because he’d even vote for firearm laws as extreme as legalizing silencers, and voted to try and block Syrian refugees from being resettled in United States. Nobody seemed to know why it was that Rosenberger suddenly resigned in April of 2018, but in August of 2018, it was confirmed that Rosenberger under FBI investigation for bribery and extortion with several lobbyists. The Bureau’s findings also seemed to indicate Rosenberger was using his office to allow himself to be sent on vacations around the globe on taxpayer dime, to the tune of $40,000 in 2018 alone, and spent 111 days of the 2017 calendar out of the state, including a trip to London where he tried to crash the set of Star Wars: The Force Awakens (really). In effect, Rosenberger was just getting ahead of a forthcoming scandal, and hoping it wouldn’t harm the Ohio GOP’s chances in the 2018 elections. This guy saw himself as a future president, and if you needed any more proof, there’s the fact that he had a doctored painting by Andy Thomas (known for his bats*** takes on Republican politics as is) where he had himself painted in at a card game being played by former Republican presidents.



On this date one year ago, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” first profiled Erin Cruz, who was a failed candidate for U.S. Senate in 2018 in California (finishing sixth in the open primary with 4% of the vote), but was in the midst of a 2020 run to be the U.S. House Representative from California’s 36th District. Among her campaign strategies? To listen to the “legitimate concerns” of Qanon Conspiracy theorists, who believe that Democrats are secretly running subterranean, Devil-worshipping child abuse rings to harvest hormones from their victims. Her personal take on Q amounted to, “WHOA IF TRUE”:

“There is someone out there putting information on the internet as part of QAnon. A conspiracy theory only sounds crazy until it’s proven.”

Wouldn’t you know it, Cruz is a “journalist” working for the new paranoid right-wing “news” site, One America News Network. This would be the same network you may have recently heard about that is noted for having less scruples or shame than Fox News, while promoting conspiracy theories like the Seth Rich Conspiracy theory.

Erin Cruz lost to Democratic Congressman Raul Ruiz in November, not even getting past the 40% of the vote threshold. She could end up being a perennial candidate in California politics for some time, as she was already planning a 2022 U.S. Senate campaign challenge for the seat formerly held by Kamala Harris while constantly unsuccessfully trying to get Gov. Gavin Newsom recalled, even though by most measurables, he’s been an outstanding governor so far.

We won’t link to her Twitter account, but suffice to say that if you wanted to be someone outraged that people on the left even exist and want to do ANY good whatsoever while portraying themselves as the victim, you can go watch this ludicrous troll do nothing but that. We’re not directing anyone to the mouth of madness.

[InformationGeek]

Oh hey, this ******* is still trying to cause s**t. Thank God Scott Walker is not the governor anymore.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said Sunday during an appearance on UPFRONT that he backs a bill that would ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports in Wisconsin.

"We're going to have a hearing on it, we're going to move that legislation forward," Vos said. "I think it's something that is broadly supported by the public that we want to ensure that folks have a right to compete but they don't have an unfair advantage just because of a choice they're making."

The bill, if passed by both the Assembly and Senate, would likely face an immediate veto from Gov. Tony Evers.

"My message to Wisconsin's transgender kids and students today is simple," Evers said in a statement when the legislation was first introduced. "You are welcome, you are wanted, and you belong."

The NCAA recently said it would consider moving championships out of states that would enact such a law.

"They have the right to do what they want," Vos said. "But that doesn't mean we should allow organizations like that to dictate what public policy should be."

The proposal would ban transgender athletes from participating in girls' and women's sports in Wisconsin from kindergarten through college.

"Would really like to hear some actual things the Assembly could be taking up," Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes tweeted in response to the interview. "Because it seems all the Speaker wants to take up is space right now."

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Oh hey, this ******* is still trying to cause s**t. Thank God Scott Walker is not the governor anymore.

Reminds me of a meme I saw on Twitter this morning, it went something like this:

Monday: Mass shooting
Tuesday: Mass shooting
Wednesday: Mass shooting
Thursday: Mass shooting
Friday: Mass shooting
Saturday: Mass shooting
Sunday: Mass shooting
Republicans: We need to do something about keeping trans kids out of sports!

[CSTowle]

Most Americans want to end lifetime Supreme Court appointments for justices

I'd be up for tests on cognitive capability, but to just make them finite appointments seems a bit much. I get that people react to the last tragedy/setback (in this case, the death of RBG) but I think we should take a long-term look at these things. Namely, how could this bite you on the @$$ in the future if you do go forward with limited terms? Sounds a lot like pushing for 4 year term limits in Congress. Probably sounds good if you don't think about it too much, but that kind of turnover is going to make it harder to track corruption rather than keeping corruption out. It's also going to fuel the Congress to lobbyist pipeline that's already a problem. We have a hard enough time with partisan Court appointments when the vacancies are difficult to predict. Knowing that one's coming up in an election might be great for turnout, but it's also more likely to fuel extremists into engaging in nonsense like we saw in January.

For what it's worth, I'd also be against court packing. You might not like the results, but as is always said/repeated "elections matter". They won, they got to reset the Supreme Court and god knows how many lower courts, and now the only thing we can do is hope we get the chance to appoint our own when a legitimate vacancy opens. You can't just kick over the table whenever you're losing, lowering standards like that will again bite you on the @$$ in the future when they get the chance to do the same and appoint another 6-8 Conservative Justices of their own. And if there's one thing you can say about Republicans, they play to win.

[Tendrin]

I
For what it's worth, I'd also be against court packing.

I get the resistance to upset the apple cart on that, but a 6-3 majority conservative court that represents a very small and ideologically narrow through line of conservative, federalist society approved viewpoints for decades is going to lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the Court sooner or later, given how little it reflect the actual variety of legal doctrines and viewpoints that are out there, and the people who vote for them. The harm that can and ultimately will do to the court is hard to understate. There will no switch in time to save nine this time, it'll be just obstruction of progressive values for decades to come, which was the whole point of getting a 6-3 majority in the first place.

Conservatives will still be overrepresented on a 13 member Supreme Court, and I do think it should happen. I do not believe it will, even if the argument for 13 members to represent the 13 districts is absolutely solid.

What's important to recognize is the strategy behind the conservative capture of the supreme court isn't just the obstruction of progressive values, but also the creation of a legalist state which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian in nature, which is why you're seeing conservatives launching further attacks on ballot initiatives in addition, stripping powers from democratic governors, and more. At some point, Democrats will need to play to win if they don't want the situation to continue to be even-when-they-win-they-lose, as we've seen attempted to varying degrees of success in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, and more recently in Kentucky where the legislature stripped the power of the Governor to appoint a Senator of his choice should one resign or die in office.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I'm also against court packing. Let's say the Democrats up the count to 13, then Qpublicans increase it to 21 if they return to power (god forbid), then back and forth, rinse and repeat. We'd be talking about the sort of escalation between the parties that might never end, while Dems want parity, an even playing field, the GQP is all about scorched earth, victory by any means necessary and they'll do anything, and I do mean ANYTHING to maintain their conservative edge on the Court.

[Tendrin]

Ithe GQP is all about scorched earth, victory by any means necessary and they'll do anything, and I do mean ANYTHING to maintain their conservative edge on the Court.

Which is exactly why they must not be allowed to.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I'm not fond of expanding the court, but after two stolen seats it's time to stop pretending that there's anything the Republicans won't do

[Mister Mets]

I'd be up for tests on cognitive capability, but to just make them finite appointments seems a bit much. I get that people react to the last tragedy/setback (in this case, the death of RBG) but I think we should take a long-term look at these things. Namely, how could this bite you on the @$$ in the future if you do go forward with limited terms? Sounds a lot like pushing for 4 year term limits in Congress. Probably sounds good if you don't think about it too much, but that kind of turnover is going to make it harder to track corruption rather than keeping corruption out. It's also going to fuel the Congress to lobbyist pipeline that's already a problem. We have a hard enough time with partisan Court appointments when the vacancies are difficult to predict. Knowing that one's coming up in an election might be great for turnout, but it's also more likely to fuel extremists into engaging in nonsense like we saw in January.

For what it's worth, I'd also be against court packing. You might not like the results, but as is always said/repeated "elections matter". They won, they got to reset the Supreme Court and god knows how many lower courts, and now the only thing we can do is hope we get the chance to appoint our own when a legitimate vacancy opens. You can't just kick over the table whenever you're losing, lowering standards like that will again bite you on the @$$ in the future when they get the chance to do the same and appoint another 6-8 Conservative Justices of their own. And if there's one thing you can say about Republicans, they play to win.

If Democrats try to pack the court, Republicans will obviously respond when they have the next chance to do so. This assumes that Sinema and Manchin would be on board, which is unlikely.

There is an argument for term limits. One suggestion I've heard is that there should be an 18-year limit. A result is that presidents would be more willing to pick older accomplished jurists. Right now, the incentives are to pick people who are younger and can be guaranteed to stick around for a long long time. In the last 25 years, every Supreme Court justice confirmed ranged in age from 48-55. It isn't ideal to reject candidates in their 60s, who may have a greater depth of experience.

There are potential ways to make the process less partisan. A rule could be that reforms won't take into effect after the next presidential election. This way it isn't about short-term partisan advantage, but what's best for the court.

I noticed it, too. However, wouldn't a mash-up of Trump and Andrew Jackson have been more appropriate and more on-the-nose?

You may be expecting too much of the intelligence of that group if you think they'll be aware of Jackson, let alone what he looks like.

I'm not sure how much they could tell you about everyone on Mt Rushmore, to be honest.

[Tami]

Why the Supreme Court ended up with nine justices—and how that could change

There is an argument that the size of the Supreme Court should reflect the number of States in some way.

Each member of the Supreme Court, in theory, represents one of the Circuits. There were 6 Circuits originally, currently, there are 13 Circuits, including the Federal Circuit. That is where President Biden came up with the number 13.

If you frame it in that way, there is justification for increasing the size of the Supreme Court to match the growing size of the Country. D.C. and Puerto Rico are already represented, so it is unlikely that the number would grow past 13 [unless the U.S. begins collecting strays].

I wasn't in favor of 'packing the court', however, if this relationship is made legally official, then the Supreme Court size will grow to 13 regardless. At that point, it will be fixed in place, unless someone get's the bright idea of altering the arrangement of the United States courts of appeals or decides to acquire more States somehow.

[Tendrin]

It's not 'packing the court'. It's already packed. It's been packed with three justices in one term to create a conservative supermajority.

If anything, we're unpacking it.