Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Don't Panic - Organize

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

As someone working in healthcare, the whole idiotic thing just makes my blood boil.

Can I start my own religion that specifically says that doing anything to heal a Republican lawmaker or judge is forbidden? Pretty sure I could whip up a short holy book in a couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

As someone working in healthcare, the whole idiotic thing just makes my blood boil.

Can I start my own religion that specifically says that doing anything to heal a Republican lawmaker or judge is forbidden? Pretty sure I could whip up a short holy book in a couple of days.

I am already drafting the tenets of the Fuckyounitarian Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

As someone working in healthcare, the whole idiotic thing just makes my blood boil.

Can I start my own religion that specifically says that doing anything to heal a Republican lawmaker or judge is forbidden? Pretty sure I could whip up a short holy book in a couple of days.

The first amendment is a funny creature.  It has both a "freedom from" (the "establishment clause") and a "freedom to" (the "free exercise" clause) aspect.  I think the founders were equally concerned with both.  However, different wings of the amendment have gotten different amounts of weight at different times depending on the reigning cultural zeitgeist.  Right now, very generally, I would say our right wing friends are very focused on free exercise, while our left wing friends tend to be more focused on the establishment clause.  But differently, I'm relatively sure that people on the left wing are more likely to see some interpretations of the free exercise clause as actually violating the establishment clause (i.e., promoting one religion over another), and/or that the level of scrutiny/the level of compelling state interest to interrupt the free exercise clause (the "freedom to") is relatively lower than for the establishment clause ("freedom from" ).  During the 20th Century, the focus was more on the establishment clause.  I am really, really, really conflicted about this one and I think that the issues presented are very, very tricky.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found a single case about the flying spaghetti monster as a sincerely held religious belief for free exercise purposes:

Quote

This case is difficult because FSMism, as a parody, is designed to look very much like a religion. Candidly, propositions from existing caselaw are not particularly well-suited for such a situation, because they developed to address more ad hoc creeds, not a comprehensive but plainly satirical doctrine. Nonetheless, it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing "deep and imponderable" matters: it is, as explained above, a satirical rejoinder to a certain strain of religious argument. Nor, however, does FSMism advocate for humanism or atheism, which the Court acknowledges have been found to be "religious" for similar purposes. See, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 681-82 (7th Cir. 2005); Jackson v. Crawford, No. 12-4018, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14222, 2015 WL 506233, at *7 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 6, 2015); Am. Humanist Ass'n v. United States, 63 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1283 (D. Or. 2014). Those belief systems, although not theistic, still deal with issues of "ultimate concern" and take a position "on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics." See Kaufman, 419 F.3d at 681-82 (quotations omitted). FSMism takes no such position: the only position it takes is that others' religious beliefs should not be presented as "science." Despite touching upon religion, that is a secular argument. "[W]hile the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not." Peloza, 37 F.3d at 521 (citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S. Ct. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1987)).

It is not clear from Cavanaugh's complaint whether his professed adherence to FSMism is grounded in that argument, or in a literal reading of the FSM Gospel. But to read the FSM Gospel literally would be to misrepresent it—and, indeed, to do it a disservice in the process. That would present the FSM Gospel as precisely the sort of Fundamentalist dogma that it was meant to rebut.

It bears emphasizing that the Court is not engaged in—and has been careful to avoid—questioning the validity of Cavanaugh's beliefs. The Court is well aware that it "should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is struggling with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ." United States v. Ali, 682 F.3d 705, 710 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Love, 216 F.3d at 688) (citations and quotations omitted). It is worth noting, however, that aside from identifying the FSM Gospel, Cavanaugh has not alleged anything about what it is that he actually believes—leaving the Court to read the book. And it is no more tenable to read the FSM Gospel as proselytizing for supernatural spaghetti than to read Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" as advocating cannibalism. Compare Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal, in Ireland in the Days of Dean Swift 193, 194-203 (J. Bowles Daly ed., 1887) (1729).

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds.See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.

Because FSMism is not a "religion" for RLUIPA purposes, Cavanaugh has failed to allege a "religious exercise" was burdened.

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt, 178 F. Supp. 3d 819, 829-30 (D.Neb.4/12/16).  if this case is any guide, perhaps newly created protest 'religions' may be ineffective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i found a single case about the flying spaghetti monster as a sincerely held religious belief for free exercise purposes:

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt, 178 F. Supp. 3d 819, 829-30 (D.Neb.4/12/16).  if this case is any guide, perhaps newly created protest 'religions' may be ineffective.

Yes.  There is, I believe, also a series of cases out there on Scientology (including most recently in 1993 at the SC level).  I personally find the Cavanaugh court's reference to Heinlein and Vonnegut in that context to be potential shade on the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a vision folks, a vision about how Trump will try to steal the next election if he loses. 

He will declare that all the states who have changed the electoral votes to follow the popular vote as unconstitutional and will announce he actually won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have had a vision folks, a vision about how Trump will try to steal the next election if he loses. 

He will declare that all the states who have changed the electoral votes to follow the popular vote as unconstitutional and will announce he actually won.

Don’t be ridiculous BIRD!. Trump will simply say the elections in states he won in 2016, but lost in 2020, were rigged, sue the states, and a 5-4 Conservative Supreme Court will side with him.

Duh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida’s Republican Legislature Votes to Nullify Popular Ballot Initiative Enfranchising Former Felons

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/florida-republican-senate-ron-desantis-amendment-4-felon-voting-rights.html

Quote

 

In 2018, a supermajority of Floridians voted for a ballot initiative to restore former felons’ voting rights. Florida’s Republican legislature has voted to effectively nullify that vote and disenfranchise a huge swath of the state’s formerly incarcerated population once again.

On a party-line vote Thursday night, Senate Republicans pushed through a draconian bill that will compel ex-felons to pay all fines, fees, and restitution associated with their sentences before they can regain their right to vote. The Florida House of Representatives passed a similar bill in April; the two measures will soon be reconciled and sent to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign the final version.

Although some Senate Republicans initially floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to vote if their fines were converted to civil liens, they eventually caved to the demands of their more extreme colleagues in the House. The bill that DeSantis will soon sign simply replaces one disenfranchisement scheme for another.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were more jobs added in April than expected:

Quote

The US labor market keeps getting stronger.

Employers added 263,000 jobs in April, another surprisingly strong month of hiring. Economists surveyed by Refinitiv expected the economy to add only 185,000 jobs last month.

The unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest level since December 1969.

Indications of strength of the labor market could be found throughout the report. The average hourly wage was up 3.2% compared to a year ago, well above the 1.9% rise in prices, meaning real gains in the paychecks of average workers.

It'll be interesting to see how long this lasts; real wage gains in the past few decades have averaged out to almost nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really wondering how the 2020 election will pan out. I really hope that Democrats put up a far better candidate than Hillary. 

I’m worried that Trump will somehow pull it off again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some pretty sweet dollars to be made from caging kids in private-sector prisons.

 

John Kelly Joins Board of Company Running Largest Shelter for Unaccompanied Migrant Children

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-kelly-joins-board-of-caliburn-international-company-running-largest-shelter-for-unaccompanied-migrant-children?ref=homep

Quote

Former Trump White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has joined the board of a company running the largest shelter for unaccompanied migrant children. Caliburn International confirmed to CBS Friday that Kelly has joined its board of directors. Caliburn is the parent company of Comprehensive Health Services, which does work in a variety of defense sectors and operates four shelters for unaccompanied migrant children. Comprehensive Health Services is the only private company operating migrant shelters. Its largest shelter, located in Homestead, Florida, is the only shelter not subject to routine inspections by state child-welfare experts. 

 

The Trump Administration Is Expanding Its Network Of Privatized Immigrant Prisons
Three new contracts mark the reversal of the Obama administration’s short-lived attempt to deprivatize federal prisons.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-administration-expanding-privately-run-immigrant-prisons_n_5cccb54fe4b0548b735a0f1c

Quote

 

The Trump administration awarded three contracts to expand a network of immigrant-only federal penitentiaries involving the country’s second-largest private prison company this week, marking the culmination of its promise to keep relying on private contractors to run federal prisons.

The three facilities ― one in Michigan and two in Texas ― have a combined capacity of nearly 5,000. The Texas prisons are part of a complex that attracted national attention in 2008 after poor conditions and a death in solitary confinement sparked a major inmate uprising.

 

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 4:15 PM, Red Tiger said:

....I legitimately don't know if this is sarcasm or despair.

Sometimes I think parody, sometimes not.

9 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The first amendment is a funny creature.  It has both a "freedom from" (the "establishment clause") and a "freedom to" (the "free exercise" clause) aspect.  I think the founders were equally concerned with both.  However, different wings of the amendment have gotten different amounts of weight at different times depending on the reigning cultural zeitgeist.  Right now, very generally, I would say our right wing friends are very focused on free exercise, while our left wing friends tend to be more focused on the establishment clause.  But differently, I'm relatively sure that people on the left wing are more likely to see some interpretations of the free exercise clause as actually violating the establishment clause (i.e., promoting one religion over another), and/or that the level of scrutiny/the level of compelling state interest to interrupt the free exercise clause (the "freedom to") is relatively lower than for the establishment clause ("freedom from" ).  During the 20th Century, the focus was more on the establishment clause.  I am really, really, really conflicted about this one and I think that the issues presented are very, very tricky.  

I get that I'm one of the resident board reactionaries.  But I'm an agnostic Republican living in Connecticut.  If I lived in Utah, for example, I'd probably be a Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

In not gonna matter news, federal judges ruled Ohio’s congressional map an unconstitutional gerrymander

https://apnews.com/49a500227b0240279b66da63078abb5a

I'm confused on why you'd say it doesn't matter.  It wouldn't for Ohio's electoral college votes, of course, but that can't be why you're saying it.  So why wouldn't it be meaningful from a House seats standpoint?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have had a vision folks, a vision about how Trump will try to steal the next election if he loses. 

He will declare that all the states who have changed the electoral votes to follow the popular vote as unconstitutional and will announce he actually won.

:huh:  The laws which states have passed to do this include a clause that it does not operate until states which have over half the electoral votes have passed it. It is highly unlikely that half of the electoral votes will be in such states in 2020, so there will be no such changes and this scenario cannot apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I'm confused on why you'd say it doesn't matter.  It wouldn't for Ohio's electoral college votes, of course, but that can't be why you're saying it.  So why wouldn't it be meaningful from a House seats standpoint?  

It won't matter because scotus will overrule it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

It won't matter because scotus will overrule it. 

Correct. The only gerrymander getting struck down is the Maryland one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a legal reason to suggest that the appellate opinion is incorrectly decided and will therefore be reversed, or are we rather succumbing to an apathetic pessimism that the supreme court will decide the issue cynically on mere partisan political grounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sologdin said:

is there a legal reason to suggest that the appellate opinion is incorrectly decided and will therefore be reversed, or are we rather succumbing to an apathetic pessimism that the supreme court will decide the issue cynically on mere partisan political grounds?

The latter, it seems. Once you start undermining faith in institutions it's difficult to restore the faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×