Jump to content

US Politics 3


TrackerNeil

Recommended Posts

How does that work? I thought Prop 8 was an amendment to the state constitution? I'm against prop 8 but this sounds like federal overreaching to me.

If a state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution, the federal government can strike the offending parts down. That said, this will be appealed. Does anyone know what Justice Kennedy's opinion on this matter? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a state constitution conflicts with the US Constitution, the federal government can strike the offending parts down. That said, this will be appealed. Does anyone know what Justice Kennedy's opinion on this matter? :)

I have little doubt that SCOTUS will side with bigotry, but still, it's a nice day for the rest of us. Suck it, God Squad!

BTW, the judge in this case is, I think, gay, so watch the whining start. Note that the whiners will be many of the same people who filed suit in federal court against the Affordable Care Act the day it was enacted by Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. And I think the law should be changed to make guest and temporary worker status much easier.

I for one would agree with that. But I suspect that few business's currently hiring illegal immigrants have little interest in hiring legal workers which would require them to pay FICA, workman's comp, overtime, unemployment, and abide by OSHA rules and FMLA.

So in the long run everything remains pretty much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one would agree with that. But I suspect that few business's currently hiring illegal immigrants have little interest in hiring legal workers which would require them to pay FICA, workman's comp, overtime, unemployment, and abide by OSHA rules and FMLA.

So in the long run everything remains pretty much the same.

They already have to pay this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already have to pay this.

So you think illegal immigrants are filing workman's comp claims and unemployment claims? FLSA complaints for working over forty hours and not receiving overtime? Taking FMLA? Filing EEOC claims?

You might be right but from what I've seen I would be very surprised to find that to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In local news, I am extremely gratified that douche Hoekstra didn't get the GOP nomination for governor. :cheers: Our choices now are Bernero, the "angriest mayor in America" and Snyder, a business man who presents like a GOP moderate.

And Kwame finally helped drag down his mother, who lost her primary challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think illegal immigrants are filing workman's comp claims and unemployment claims? FLSA complaints for working over forty hours and not receiving overtime? Taking FMLA? Filing EEOC claims?

You might be right but from what I've seen I would be very surprised to find that to be true.

Workman's comp? Probably not. Unemployment? Sure. My wife does this stuff for a living, about 1/3 of her clients are illegally in the country. Just about every one of them has a social security card, pays payroll deductions, etc etc. They look just like you and I on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.

Someones interpreting the framers intent. Naughty naughty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it isn't. The problem is that it is combined with trade deficits and bad trade agreements. The money does trickle down, just not to US.

Now it goes overseas (in the form of Swiss bank accounts), but when Reagan first did it in the 1980's, we were still an industrial powerhouse. It still didn't work, and now we're reaping what we sowed.

And this might be old news, but...

Geithner: Tax cuts for rich a '$700 billion mistake'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Workman's comp? Probably not. Unemployment? Sure. My wife does this stuff for a living, about 1/3 of her clients are illegally in the country. Just about every one of them has a social security card, pays payroll deductions, etc etc. They look just like you and I on paper.

Illegals who have a bogus identity can possibly connect unemployment, etc. That happens when an employer is following "the rules", but the illegal is lying about his/er identity.

But there are also lots of situations where the employer is paying the illegal cash under the table, and there is no payroll records or withholding at all.

However, a great many are also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out who to support in the CT Republican Senate primary next Tuesday.

Simmons has a pretty solid record with respect to his time in the intelligence community and national defense, but his congressional record is bit too moderate for my tastes. Though he did win election running as a moderate Republican by a small margin, so that's understandable. And, if the overall composition of the new Congress is much more into limited government and fiscal sanity, he seems quite likely to play along.

Schiff definitely sounds like the best fiscal conservative of the three, but he's also last in the polling since he hasn't been spending as much as McMahon, doesn't have the name recognition of a former Congressman, and isn't terribly exciting to boot.

Linda McMahon does have a lot of foreign policy experience, having dealt with the Killer Khan, the Iron Sheik, and Nikolai Volkoff. And I'm sure if she needs advice about how to stimulate the private sector, Ted DiBiase is still in her rolodex. I'm also pretty sure that Pedro Morales wasn't undocumented, so she seems to be on the right side of that issue for me too.

In some respects, it really doesn't matter since whoever the winner is, they'll be going up against Dick Blumenthal, who is best described as an Elliot Spitzer wannabe and whore for media attention.

I sure hope not. I voted democrat in the last election for three reasons: closing Guantanamo, ending the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and reducing the deficit by going back to the Clinton era taxes rates. If they let the republicans run with this and renew the tax cuts the Obama White House will officially fuck up all three things I give a shit about.

Whether or not they continue the Bush tax rates, you're still hosed on the deficit reduction idea because there's no way in hell Obama will get us back to Clinton era spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are also lots of situations where the employer is paying the illegal cash under the table, and there is no payroll records or withholding at all.

These are a very small portion of immigrant employment, and when it's being done that way, it's because minimum wage laws have created a black market for labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crazy seems to be coming out of the woodwork this election.

In CO, the leading candidate for governor believes that Denver's bike sharing program will later be exposed as a UN Plot.

"These aren't just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor," Maes told the Denver Post. "These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to." Maes is alarmed by Denver's status as a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, a sustainable development consortium designed "to bring cities from all over the world together to share best practices and help create the kinds of communities people want to live and do business in." Sounds harmless, right? "That's exactly the attitude they want you to have," Maes says. "At first, I thought, 'Gosh, public transportation, what's wrong with that, and what's wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what's wrong with incentives for green cars?' But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty,"

He gave it a go, but it's still hard to out-crazy Sharron Angle who has switched the rhetoric from needing a "second amendment remedy" for Harry Reid to believing his politics violates The First Commandment (not amendment, commandment):

"These programs that you mentioned -- that [President] Obama has going with [Harry] Reid and [Nancy] Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," Angle said in a little noticed interview with Christian Radio this past spring. "And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

I think Reid's best chance at defeating her is if he can goad her into comparing Las Vegas and Reno to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was skimming the gay marriage decision (PDF here), seems like a clean sweep for the anti-Prop 8 side. The judge ruled that (1) the ban was unconstitutional on due process grounds (homosexual marriage is a fundamental right, in that it is no different from heterosexual marriage which is long established as a fundamental right, and there was no compelling reason to violate that fundamental right), and (2) the ban was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (in that it treats different classifications of people differently, without a compelling reason). The judge also rejected civil unions as an adequate alternative to marriage.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Boies and Olson are quite the legal dream team. We'll see what the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS have to say, but this has to be exactly what they were going for, as far as I can tell.

A board lawyer can probably do a real analysis, but that was what I got on a quick read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see my mistake. Readin the paper this morning I see this is coming from the 9th Circuit. I hope the Right of center Judges on the US Supreme Court look at this case hard and long and realize you can't have "special rights" for couples who happen to be like you. They should be extended to all. I hope Prop 8 stays dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see my mistake. Readin the paper this morning I see this is coming from the 9th Circuit. I hope the Right of center Judges on the US Supreme Court look at this case hard and long and realize you can't have "special rights" for couples who happen to be like you. They should be extended to all. I hope Prop 8 stays dead.

Which ones are these, exactly? Maybe Roberts, but that's about it. Alito and Scalia are wingnuts; Thomas doesn't have the independent judgment of a goldfish, and eats whatever Scalia puts in his tank.

What opponents of Prop 8 should be hoping for instead is that the judges who demonstrate a capacity for sound judgment are awake that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which ones are these, exactly? Maybe Roberts, but that's about it. Alito and Scalia are wingnuts; Thomas doesn't have the independent judgment of a goldfish, and eats whatever Scalia puts in his tank.

What opponents of Prop 8 should be hoping for instead is that the judges who demonstrate a capacity for sound judgment are awake that day.

Under the logic of this decision, every state in the union must recognize gay marriage. Personally, I'm not sure how something can be considered a "fundamental right" when it didn't exist anywhere less than a decade ago, but I guess we'll have to see what the Court ends up deciding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the logic of this decision, every state in the union must recognize gay marriage. Personally, I'm not sure how something can be considered a "fundamental right" when it didn't exist anywhere less than a decade ago, but I guess we'll have to see what the Court ends up deciding.

What the suffering fuck does ten years ago have to do with whether or not something is a fundamental right? This line of argument smacks of "it violates tradition, it must be wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have little doubt that SCOTUS will side with bigotry, but still, it's a nice day for the rest of us. Suck it, God Squad!

BTW, the judge in this case is, I think, gay, so watch the whining start. Note that the whiners will be many of the same people who filed suit in federal court against the Affordable Care Act the day it was enacted by Congress.

There actually may be good reason for people to whine about this judge not recusing himself.

As much as I'd like to see gay marriage legalized, I doubt this decision will stand. One of two things will likely happen. The Ninth Circuit will overturn the decision and SCOTUS will deny cert (the 4 liberal justices would never grant cert). Or the Ninth Circuit affirms the decision and SCOTUS grants to cert to overturn the decision. Of course, Kennedy will be the deciding vote, but I can't imagine that he'd vote to overturn the will of the people of California (and the overwhelming majority of America). This is not Lawrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...