Weekly Thread 5/3/17 to 5/10/17. Congressional quagmire week. Some things are not going smoothly

Weekly Thread 5/3/17 to 5/10/17. Congressional quagmire week. Some things are not going smoothly.

This post was last modified on May 11, 2017

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (65)

  • Hey JP, I noticed you haven't responded to my previous comment in regards to how you overlooked Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1. I do notice you commenting on other posts. Is that because you acknowledge that I'm right?

    • The federal government can make regulations but they need to be legitimate regulations regarding a constitutional issue, not something picayune regarding how the election is run. In other words, the federal government can tell the states they are not allowed to have a literacy test because it unfairly restricts minority voting (which I've always felt was a bit of an insult to minorities but there is no doubt the South was using literacy tests as a way to stop blacks from voting), but they cannot tell the states where the polling places must be or how long they are open or what kind of voting machine to use because those are not constitutional issues. In this case, the judge is stepping into a territory where there is no constitutional issue, merely a political issue. Democrats always think they can register more voters if they only try hard enough, or they can register fake voters, or dead people, so they want more time to register. There is no constitutional issue. No protected class has been constitutionally handicapped by not allowing a fresh round of registrations between the election and the runoff--everybody is on an equal footing. Hence there is no federal issue. So the judge stepped into state territory to mandate what he THINKS is the meaning of the federal statute, arbitrarily defining the runoff vote as an "election" subject to federal law about registrations. Trouble is, many legal scholars have doubts about the constitutionality of that federal legislation in the first place--this judge has really made it problematic by extending the legislation's reach into the picayune matters of how the state conducts a runoff. After this, the states are going to be taking aim at that legislation.

      AS a practical matter, I've worked at the local level. There are legitimate reasons why a state doesn't want more registrations between the election and the runoff. Voter registration is enormously complicated and rife with errors. Getting everything in order for an election requires overtime hours and lots of work by city and county clerks. They reach a point where they're almost frantic trying to get ready for Election Day. They deserve some time off afterward. Now some stupid federal judge, with no clue how the actual process works, has decided they need to reopen the voter rolls and start all over registering new voters for the runoff, demonstrating with his blissful ignorance EXACTLY why the framers wanted this process under state control, not federal control.

      • Looks like Blizzard Weak hasn't responded to this. Guess he is acknowledging you are right.

        • Lol!

          Oh man sorry for forgetting to respond to a 500 word response. Guess that happens when you have a life outside of the internet?

          Can you relate ?

          • I was mocking you by using your own words against you. Really, this would be a lot more fun if you weren't so obtuse.

          • Hey asshole, this thread begins with you chastising me for not responding to you fast enough, so maybe don't be so sensitive about someone chastising you.

    • Those three Republicans are RINOs who lie to their constituents every six years to get re-elected. More importantly, they're idiots. Naturally, being idiots, they often vote with the Mother Ship for idiots, the Democrat Party.

      I'll never forget when McCain showed his environmental stupidity by making his famous statement about ANWR:

      http://www.jpattitude.com/Images/ANWR.jpg

  • The heck is going on with the airlines?! People be brawling in the airport after Spirit Airlines cancel flights, but according to reports it is because they FORCED people to pay the cancellation fees, even though it was the airlines that cancelled!!!

    Airlines are out of their damn minds! They better get their shit together.

    • It is so bizarre. Him sitting at Merkel's feet and marrying a woman 25 years his senior whome he met when he was sixteen (for what I heard)... gross...

    • Has is dawned on you that every time you pop in here to gloat, it's about an activist judge overturning democratically enacted laws? Seems to me that reveals you as an anti-democratic totalitarian... and as long as I'm leading you to enlightenment today, I defy you to give me an example of ANY leftwing government ANYWHERE at ANY TIME in history that wasn't also anti-democratic and totalitarian.

      Welcome, you are.

      • What makes you think they are activist judges? Is that just because you don't agree with them?

        Also what does your question have to do with the article that I posted.

        • It's very simple, so simple that I question the sincerity of your question. (You can't be that stupid, can you?) The law in Georgia is that voters cannot register to vote between the general election and the runoff. That has been the law for a long time and nobody has objected. You can question its wisdom, you can disagree with its logic, but it is the law--the LAW-- which this particular judge took an oath to apply. Instead, he ignored it for the very simple reason that Democrats feel they have a chance in the runoff and need to register as many new (very probably illegal) voters as they can, and this judge wants to help the Democrats if he can.

          • the basis of the judge's ruling is the national voter registration act. One of the provisions of that act is that they cannot set the voting registration deadline more than 30 days before the election. The act makes NO mention of special elections and runoff elections. Therefore, the judge is allowing registrations to continue based upon that act. I would disagree with you that the judge is ignoring the law.

            If it brings you any comfort, I think the GOP candidate will win next month.

          • 1) No national law can overthrow the constitutional right of states to run their elections as they see fit.

            2) The "election" was last month. This is the runoff election. At the very least he's interpreting a technicality to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach.

            3) Notice that the example cited in your linked article is a woman who just moved to the district, so in effect he's allowing a woman to vote who wasn't even there soon enough for the general election. Why should she have a say in who represents the district when state law says she didn't move there in time? You can argue she should, but STATE LAW says she wasn't there in time, and STATE LAW determines how elections are run, no matter what legislation Congress passes in Washington.

            4) As more and more federal judges insert themselves into state matters, they are effectively killing federalism in this country and centralizing power in D.C. Is that truly what you want? Have you thought it through? Has centralized power EVER been a good thing?

          • 1)

            "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

            --United States Constitution, Article IV; Section 1, Clause 2

            Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

            2) They are considered two different elections though.

            3) In this case federal law trumps the state law so your question is no longer valid.

            4) Isn't that a subjective comment? How do you define a centralized government? I would disagree and say that federalism is alive and well.

            Federalism doesn't mean 50 micro countries though.

          • 4) What federalism doesn't mean is federal judges telling states how to run state business, which is what we're seeing here. And no, "centralization" is not a subjective thing: when the feds grab power from the states, that's it, plain and simple. STATES RUN ELECTIONS. Again, plain and simple. If Georgia's statute said only black people couldn't register before the runoff, that would make this a matter for a federal judge. It does not. So whether this federal judge likes the way Georgia runs its elections or not, it's none of his business. The people of Georgia decided how they want to elect their representatives, as it should be.

          • 3) Federal law never trumps state law except when it is convenient for liberals. Notice that liberals insist state law trumps federal law when it comes to sanctuary cities. In this case, elections are run by states, not the feds. End of story. State law wins unless it violates a mandate of the Constitution, which Georgia law does not.

          • 1) Only laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the law of the land, which means the federal government is limited in what it can control. That's the whole point of the Constitution, LIMITED government. Seriously, dude, in my generation they covered this in high school civics class.

          • “Federal law never trumps state law except when it is convenient for liberals. Notice that liberals insist state law trumps federal law when it comes to sanctuary cities. In this case, elections are run by states, not the feds. End of story. State law wins unless it violates a mandate of the Constitution, which Georgia law does not.”

            You r last sentence is not correct. You may think this is a 10th amendment ordeal but it is not. The National Voters Rights Act of 1993 was constitutional because of Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:

            “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

            http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/19/election-regulations

            .Since the National Voters Rights Act of 1993 says states cannot make election deadlines longer than 30 days, the Judge is correct in this particular incident.

            I do encourage you to reread the entire Constitution. You will be surprised to learn something things you didn’t know or have forgotten over the years (such as Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1) in your case.

          • And you skipped over the writings of the Federalist Papers where the ratifiers were convinced of the small scope of this provision and that it would be used only in cases of extreme emergency most notably when colluding states were trying to dissolve the legislature by withholding elections and thus sufficient representation necessary for a quorum.

          • Right. The main point is, the feds are not supposed to micromanage the election process.

        • Judges are not suppose to MAKE up laws, just enforce them...The twits in San Francisco, Hawaii and out east all made up their decisions based on their beliefs and NOT the rule of law. Can't not make it much plainer for you but it doesn't matter cause you are too busy gloating instead of finding the truth..

  • Can anyone explain how the NYT is maintaining this level of stock pricing?
    Open 16.20
    High 16.85
    Low 16.10
    Close 16.75
    There is NOTHING about the company to support this price level.

      • Circulation has nothing to do with a newspaper's profitability, it's all advertising. They're losing money, which means they can't attract enough advertisers. Plus, the paper sucks.

      • Try again..They are losing money. How would they be able to maintain the current price unless Carlos is baying back stock to artificially keep the price up, A common trick with cheaters.

      • She is a famous breeder and she breeds the world's biggest giant rabbits. Her animals are prized around the world, they win contests, etc. So yeah they need to make things right with her and/or Simon's owner.

Related Post
  1. Yep, Biden’s the clear winner, Beverly Hills Trump rally proves it
  2. Breathtaking 4K video shows Mars in ultra-high definition
  3. National Drug Store To Sell Line Of Make-Up For Men