US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1188

On July 23 2014 06:37 Nyxisto wrote:


We have a nice little experiment called 'Scandinavia' that proofs exactly that. (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/why-sweden-closing-prisons)

Everyone who thinks that what American legal system is doing makes sense is in denial.

On July 23 2014 06:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:


yeah, but the issue is one of mentality. most americans want criminals to be harshly punished. I don't think prisons are the cause of this - rather I think prisons are the way they are because most americans (at least out of the voter base - conveniently convicted felons are not included ) want them to be that way.

On July 23 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I think it's just a reaction to crime. When crime was increasing people pushed for more police / harsher sentencing.

On July 23 2014 07:17 Nyxisto wrote:


sending people into prison for smoking or dealing some pot isn't harsh, it's just insane. You have more people in prison than China. Either the US is home tof a population of genetically modified super-villains or your system is ridiculously broken.

On July 23 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I think it's just a reaction to crime. When crime was increasing people pushed for more police / harsher sentencing. As crime has fallen in recent years, more lenient sentencing laws have become more popular.

Edit: For example...


Source

On July 23 2014 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:


I really don't think you can just attribute these changes in mentality to crime rates in the way spending mentalities relate to the economy or whatever. I think it's far more plausible to attribute more support for lenient sentencing laws to the fact that it's easily observable that lenient sentencing laws yield better societal results than harsher punishment - apart from the element of punishment that still relates to giving some feeling of "retribution" to the victim of the crime. Imo this is basically an evolution of collective human thought, much like how spanking children (in the west) has less support now than it did 100 years ago because we've collectively observed that you can attain better results otherwise.

On July 23 2014 08:12 DannyJ wrote:
Instituting really harsh punishments when crime/drug crime, admittedly, was really bad has basically now just gone haywire as Americans go about on their typically apathetic selves forgetting all about it.

I also think it's an area where American values mix with the apathy so we really let it grow under our noses. Like Drone said, it has a lot to do with mindset probably. The extremely strong feeling of personal accountability and independence that pervades American fabric overall has kind of muddied the well when it comes to determining what is "just" or sensible. If you are guilty of something illegal you "get what you deserve", whatever that is.

Apathy is the main culprit though. I definitely think most people would agree we have way too harsh sentences for tons of things and they would change them. The problem is that it's hard to get people to care so much about the issue. There are so many things that America could change but simply don't because people flat out don't know or care about the issue since the problem effects mainly the fringes of society. In this case it's criminals, maybe the fringe many citizens hold in the lowest respect.

That's my opinion anyway.

On July 23 2014 06:54 TommyP wrote:
Did you guys see the court ruling(s?) pertaining to Obamacare today? I was at work and hadn't really had time to read about them. Could someone explain what happened today?

P.S. First time visiting this thread, not sure if I'm obligated to go with discussion about drug law/prisons/whatever or if I can just throw in things like this. This thread is kind of overwhelming your first time lol.

Sorry if this discussion was going on earlier today and I missed it by chance.

It may be a sign of changing times: After rejecting a ballot measure to vote on legalizing recreational marijuana just two years ago, Oregonian pot supporters got enough votes for the ballot to proceed this time around.

State elections officials certified Tuesday that petitioners have submitted enough valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot this year.

Election workers say there were roughly 88,500 valid signatures — about 1,400 more than required.

The measure would allow adults 21 and older to buy and possess marijuana. It gives the Oregon Liquor Control Commission the job of regulating and taxing the plant.

Voters rejected a legalization measure two years ago, when little money was spent promoting it. The group backing this year's effort has received contributions from some of the same donors who backed successful marijuana initiatives earlier in the states of Washington and Colorado.

If the ballot initiative passes, Oregon would become the third state, after Washington and Colorado, to allow the recreational use of marijuana. Several other states permit the drug to be used for medical purposes. Others have conditionally approved the use of the drug, but have not officially legalized it yet.

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned a panel of lawmakers that they “must act” in support of a lawsuit against President Barack Obama for executive overreach or face “self-destruction” as a deliberative body.

Turley appeared as a witness for the House Rules Committee on Wednesday as that panel considered advancing a proposed lawsuit that would check the White House’s recent moves to cut out Congress on issues like health-care reform, immigration and drug policy.

The George Washington University law professor — who supports many of President Obama’s policies but opposes their unilateral implementation — expressed his support for the lawsuit and his belief that Congress, as a coequal branch of government, has the standing to sue to presidency.

“Our system is changing,” he warned, “and this body is the one branch that must act if we are to reverse those changes. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government, a model long-ago rejected by the framers.”

Turley excoriated lawmakers who he believes won’t stand up for their own rights under the Constitution.

“A dominant presidency has occurred with very little congressional opposition,” he noted. “Indeed, when President Obama pledged to circumvent Congress, he received rapturous applause from the very body that he was proposing to make practically irrelevant. Now many members are contesting the right of this institution to even be heard in federal court.”

“This body is moving from self-loathing to self-destruction in a system that is in crisis,” the law professor charged. “The president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge.

When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself,” he warned, “which is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid. What we’re witnessing today is one of the greatest crises that members of this body will face.”

It has a patina of politics that is hard to penetrate,” Turley explained. “It did not start with President Obama — I was critical of his predecessor, and certainly this goes back long before George Bush. But it has reached a tipping point.”

On July 23 2014 09:59 jellyjello wrote:
Not sure if this was posted...

Liberal Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama executive actions seen as threat to Constitution



Source

On July 23 2014 10:23 farvacola wrote:
Turley has been for impeaching or prosecuting every president since HW. You need only link RCP once in order to remind us that he hasn't changed.