Examples of GOP Leadership

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
That would be hilarious. 2022 really is so damn important for the Democrats to win back the house and hopefully gain in the senate too.

Can you imagine the garbage hearings the Republicans would do. I bet they would also impeach Biden/Harris to troll them leading up to 2024 elections.
There is no doubt in my mind that they will Trump-up charges to impeach Biden, Harris, Pelosi and the entire Democratic Party if they get the chance.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Im not sure SCOTUS said what you are saying it did. If I am wrong I am sure you will answer someone else's post with some troll added in about how stupid people are to think that what you are saying has anything to do with it, so I look forward to that.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-the-supreme-courts-gerrymandering-decision-means-for-2020
View attachment 4903162
They explicitly say the congress has the power to end gerrymandering and by inference draw federal congressional districts. HR-1 will have teeth and I don't think Roberts and the conservatives on the SCOTUS are gonna fuck around with voters rights this time either. The hundreds of voter suppression laws being passed in red states kinda precludes this and makes the case for the law. Trump changed everything and all the work they did loading the court with conservatives will back fire on the "new GOP". The conservatives on the court are homeless, like the other actual conservatives you see on TV. Steve Schmitt walked Roberts trough his confirmation process for the Bush administration.

 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
They explicitly say the congress has the power to end gerrymandering and by inference draw federal congressional districts. HR-1 will have teeth and I don't think Roberts and the conservatives on the SCOTUS are gonna fuck around with voters rights this time either. The hundreds of voter suppression laws being passed in red states kinda precludes this and makes the case for the law. Trump changed everything and all the work they did loading the court with conservatives will back fire on the "new GOP". The conservatives on the court are homeless, like the other actual conservatives you see on TV. Steve Schmitt walked Roberts trough his confirmation process for the Bush administration.

It is a pretty cool story how the people got ending gerrymandering on Michigan's ballot in 2018.

Screen Shot 2021-05-17 at 5.23.52 PM.png


 

printer

Well-Known Member
You really need to stop posting about American politics as you clearly are completely ignorant as to how our government works. There is no crime. The DOJ has nothing to do with the judicial branch.
You just said above the SCOTUS ruled against Gerrymandering. So it is not allowed, I guess that says it is a crime. I have just been following your words for guidance.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
“Whig”ing Out About The GOP Infighting

The GOP infighting reached a turning point after Republicans ousted Congresswoman Liz Cheney from her leadership position. To some, the internal conflicts are drawing comparisons to the demise of the Whig Party in the early 1850s. Allan Lichtman, Distinguished Professor of History at American University joins NBC’s Joshua Johnson to discuss what the current Republican Party could learn from the mistakes of the Whig Party.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
You just said above the SCOTUS ruled against Gerrymandering. So it is not allowed, I guess that says it is a crime. I have just been following your words for guidance.
You really are a very special kind of stupid, aren't you?

The Supreme Court of the United States is NOT a criminal court. It interprets law and guides it so that it is constitutional. I don't know how many times I have to say that. Apparently, several hundred as that block of granite you call a brain isn't capable of absorbing it the first time.

Their ruling didn't make gerrymandering illegal. It stated that the way North Carolina did it violated the constitution. There is still no law against gerrymandering. That's what the Biden administration needs to do and could do now that they have that ruling in their corner.

That you don't grasp that is simply mind boggling. I'll try one last time to dumb this down to your level with the most layman example I know of: Ernesto Miranda.

Everybody has heard the Miranda warning:

You have the right to remain silent.
Anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
You have the right to have your attorney present with you during any questioning.
If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you at no cost.
Do you understand these rights as I have explained them to you?

That is the bare bones Miranda warning. You can add to it, and many jurisdictions do, but you can not subtract from it.

Now then, the only part of that warning that has to do with Ernesto Miranda is the very last light I bolded. You see, Miranda was a criminal. (Fun fact everybody involved in getting the Miranda warning written was a criminal.)

Miranda had a long list of convictions; petty theft, breaking and entering, several assaults, etc. Well, one day he saw a girl he wanted, followed her home and raped her. He did this without even trying to hide it. Several people saw him going into and out of the dwelling the girl lived in, the girl picked him out of a lineup...

It was an open and shut case. So they told Ernesto basically this: Look, we've got you dead to rights and you know it. You can either go to trial, get convicted and do 15 years, or you can plead guilty, save us the trouble, get sentenced to 5 years and be out in 2 or 3.

Miranda took the path of least resistance and signed a confession and that was that. Until it wasn't.

On the confession form he filled out, at the very top it said something like:

I ________________________________ make this confession of my own free will, without any coercion, knowing and understanding my legal rights.

It took a lawyer from the ACLU about 2 seconds to see that form with that sentence on it that Miranda filled out and file an appeal on his behalf. The argument was simple: How did Ernesto Miranda understand his rights? Did the cop explain it to him? No. Did a judge? No.

In fact, nobody did.

It went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed: How on earth can someone make a confession knowing all of their legal rights when nobody bothered to ever explain to him what his legal rights really were?

Now, that ruling DID NOT CREATE the Miranda act. What it did do was get Miranda's confession thrown out and his conviction overturned. Nobody went to jail for it because as in the North Carolina gerrymandering case, nobody actually broke any law, they simply had a process that wasn't accounted for within the law that violated the constitution.

It would be several months and a couple more SCOTUS cases thrown in (Gideon, Escobeto) before we would have the Miranda act we have today. But nobody went to jail over it, nobody was charged with it, because laws in this nation are crafted piece by piece. You can't break a law that doesn't actually exist.

North Carolina had to redraw its districts. Arizona had to retry Miranda. That was all that really happened in either case until of course the Miranda Act was passed a few months later.

And Miranda himself? Well, the publicity was so bad that Arizona had to move the trial out of the state and everybody used assumed names. He was still found guilty and went to prison. A few years later he got out and went back to being Miranda. A few years after that, he was murdered. His murderer was one of the first people in the nation to be given the Miranda Warning.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

GOP leaders look to curtail ballot initiatives after red state voters opt for legal weed, expanded Medicaid

Republican officials in Mississippi and Missouri have overturned ballot initiatives passed by voters in last year’s elections, a move Democrats are comparing to the refusal of some GOP leaders to accept the legitimacy of the presidential results.

In November, nearly 60 percent of Mississippi voters said yes to Ballot Initiative 65, opting to establish a medical marijuana program through an amendment to the state constitution. In a country where the number of states legalizing weed for even recreational use continues to grow, the proposal would allow possession of up to 2.5 ounces of the drug for patients with a qualifying condition, including cancer, Parkinson's disease and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Last Friday, the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned the preference of more than 766,000 people on a technicality. The decision came as the result of a lawsuit filed by Mary Hawkins Butler, the GOP mayor of Madison, Miss., and hinged on the wording of the ballot initiative process established in the 1990s.

Medical marijuana. (Getty Images)

Medical marijuana. (Getty Images)

Under those guidelines, petitioners needed to gather one-fifth of their signatures from each of the state's five congressional districts. However, as of 2000, Mississippi has only four districts, although supporters of medical marijuana gathered signatures according to the old map as a precaution, at the advice of the state attorney general’s office.
...
 

printer

Well-Known Member
You really are a very special kind of stupid, aren't you?

The Supreme Court of the United States is NOT a criminal court. It interprets law and guides it so that it is constitutional. I don't know how many times I have to say that. Apparently, several hundred as that block of granite you call a brain isn't capable of absorbing it the first time.

Their ruling didn't make gerrymandering illegal. It stated that the way North Carolina did it violated the constitution. There is still no law against gerrymandering. That's what the Biden administration needs to do and could do now that they have that ruling in their corner.

That you don't grasp that is simply mind boggling. I'll try one last time to dumb this down to your level with the most layman example I know of: Ernesto Miranda.

Everybody has heard the Miranda warning:

You have the right to remain silent.
Anything that you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
You have the right to have your attorney present with you during any questioning.
If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you at no cost.
Do you understand these rights as I have explained them to you?

That is the bare bones Miranda warning. You can add to it, and many jurisdictions do, but you can not subtract from it.

Now then, the only part of that warning that has to do with Ernesto Miranda is the very last light I bolded. You see, Miranda was a criminal. (Fun fact everybody involved in getting the Miranda warning written was a criminal.)

Miranda had a long list of convictions; petty theft, breaking and entering, several assaults, etc. Well, one day he saw a girl he wanted, followed her home and raped her. He did this without even trying to hide it. Several people saw him going into and out of the dwelling the girl lived in, the girl picked him out of a lineup...

It was an open and shut case. So they told Ernesto basically this: Look, we've got you dead to rights and you know it. You can either go to trial, get convicted and do 15 years, or you can plead guilty, save us the trouble, get sentenced to 5 years and be out in 2 or 3.

Miranda took the path of least resistance and signed a confession and that was that. Until it wasn't.

On the confession form he filled out, at the very top it said something like:

I ________________________________ make this confession of my own free will, without any coercion, knowing and understanding my legal rights.

It took a lawyer from the ACLU about 2 seconds to see that form with that sentence on it that Miranda filled out and file an appeal on his behalf. The argument was simple: How did Ernesto Miranda understand his rights? Did the cop explain it to him? No. Did a judge? No.

In fact, nobody did.

It went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed: How on earth can someone make a confession knowing all of their legal rights when nobody bothered to ever explain to him what his legal rights really were?

Now, that ruling DID NOT CREATE the Miranda act. What it did do was get Miranda's confession thrown out and his conviction overturned. Nobody went to jail for it because as in the North Carolina gerrymandering case, nobody actually broke any law, they simply had a process that wasn't accounted for within the law that violated the constitution.

It would be several months and a couple more SCOTUS cases thrown in (Gideon, Escobeto) before we would have the Miranda act we have today. But nobody went to jail over it, nobody was charged with it, because laws in this nation are crafted piece by piece. You can't break a law that doesn't actually exist.

North Carolina had to redraw its districts. Arizona had to retry Miranda. That was all that really happened in either case until of course the Miranda Act was passed a few months later.

And Miranda himself? Well, the publicity was so bad that Arizona had to move the trial out of the state and everybody used assumed names. He was still found guilty and went to prison. A few years later he got out and went back to being Miranda. A few years after that, he was murdered. His murderer was one of the first people in the nation to be given the Miranda Warning.
You lost me at, "You are a special kind of stupid". You can use that on the trolls all you want, that is their problem. I think it will be some time before I reply to you again. Good day sir.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
You lost me at, "You are a special kind of stupid". You can use that on the trolls all you want, that is their problem. I think it will be some time before I reply to you again. Good day sir.
Later, self-righteous, talk loudly about things he knows nothing about Canadian.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
You lost me at, "You are a special kind of stupid". You can use that on the trolls all you want, that is their problem. I think it will be some time before I reply to you again. Good day sir.
He puts everybody on ignore anyway, he hates to lose arguments and ties his ego to arguments. From what I can gather he was a school teacher, I can imagine that habit was prevalent in his classroom too.

Taco has a pain in the back that he turns into a pain in the ass for everybody else who disagrees with him. I've found many Canadians on this site are better informed on American civics than most Americans, but that's not saying much.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Yeah, don't appropriate my 'murican culture!
It's always funny when people who know absolutely nothing about how the judicial system of the United States works tries to tell you how it works. Kind of like a man telling a woman all there is to know about how painful child birth is or isn't. :roll:
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
You lost me at, "You are a special kind of stupid". You can use that on the trolls all you want, that is their problem. I think it will be some time before I reply to you again. Good day sir.
All courts are constitutional courts and criminal courts as well, the SCOTUS has settled many criminal cases. They are the final stop for death penalty cases, when they decide to hear them. The SCOTUS also settles constitutional matters which come before them in the form of civil and criminal court cases that work their way up through the hierarchical judicial system. They settle both state and federal criminal and civil law in accordance with the constitution, the same as any other judges do. I never had to look any of this shit up, it's just common fucking sense. The court system in Canada and any other country that uses the system of English common law are structured and work the same way.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
GOP-led Maricopa County board decries election recount a 'sham'
In a letter to GOP senators announcing that the board will cease all cooperation with the GOP state senators' efforts, the board accused state senators of allowing Arizona to become a "laughingstock" as they pursued discredited, false claims of election fraud perpetrated by former President Trump.

"You are photographing ballots contrary to the laws that the Senate helped enact, and you are sending those images to unidentified places and people. You have repeatedly lost control of your Twitter account, which has tweeted things that appear to be the rantings of a petulant child—not the serious statements of a serious audit," wrote the board.

“I will not be responding to any more requests from this sham process. Finish your audit and be ready to defend what you’re finding in a court of law,” added Chairman Jack Sellers (R) at Monday's meeting of the board, according to The Washington Post.
 
Top