US Politics Mega-thread - Page 719

On December 16 2013 13:25 coverpunch wrote:

I know asking for nuance is a little too much when we discuss politics, but there's a big difference between "two-tiered" and "unequal". The PD system rightfully deserves criticism, but private defense attorneys aren't "get out of jail free" cards.

But I don't see it as too different from any other problem-solving profession. If you have a million dollars to spend on a CPA, a doctor, a mechanic, or private teachers, then you get better and more professional service, certainly better than what is offered publicly. But there exist more than two systems, one for the rich and one for everyone else. These things are unequal but there are more than two tiers.

On December 16 2013 22:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Of course rich kids are unhappy just like poor kids are. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Happiness has never been all that related to how much stuff you have, it's much more related to how successful you feel and how often you accomplish this absolutely crucial "feeling of mastery". Things give very temporary boosts, the feeling that you are being good and accomplishing what is expected of you gives long term boosts. If expectations are significantly higher for rich kids - and they are - then that's also likely to make their lives less happy.

For me, this is just one more reason why we should push towards a less competitive and more egalitarian society, it's not just beneficial for the poor, but also for the rich. Competition is good for the ones who manage to compete, but it's absolutely crippling for those who fail. Rich kids compete against rich kids, and failure (being relative) is thus just as common in that "class" or whatever you want to group them as.

On December 16 2013 23:37 coverpunch wrote:
"Equal protection" does not mean what you apparently think it means. You should also pull your outrage at the judicial system from more reputable and primary sources than a humor tabloid like Dealbreaker.

On December 16 2013 23:16 DoubleReed wrote:


We're not talking about doctors, mechanics, or teachers. We're talking about justice, due process, and equal protection. The difference is that we're supposed to have equal protection under law. It's in our Constitution.

This is not some isolated incident. A morgan stanley investment banker stabbed a egyptian cabdriver in the hand and then got off with zero prison time (and the cabdriver was confused and shocked at this, never agreeing with any deal). As you can imagine, an egyptian cabdriver stabbing a banker in the hand would've had severely different consequences.

There's supposed to be one tier to our justice system. Not one for the privileged, and another for the plebians like us. It shocks me that you think this is the equivalent of hiring different mechanics. You're a crazy person.

On December 17 2013 00:10 coverpunch wrote:
Well I think you made your own bed by assuming "equal protection" and "equal justice" are the same thing.

Equal protection is a defense against abuse by the government, the court in this case. It says nothing about whether all people must have their interests defended equally. If you present a crappy case, you're going to lose. If you present an outstanding case, your chances of mercy are substantially improved. Not because the court is treating you differently but because your case is more compelling and persuasive.

To go back to the original story, IMO a good parallel would be Dharun Ravi, who was convicted of using his webcam to spy on his gay roommate, who subsequently committed suicide. Ravi was offered a plea deal with no jail and he turned it down. Even after being convicted, he served only 20 days behind bars with 3 years probation. He wasn't convicted on any counts of killing his roommate, mind you, but the court showed him substantial mercy compared to the maximum penalties he could have gotten and arguably deserved.

On December 16 2013 23:58 DoubleReed wrote:


Wow, you really think "Equal Protection" means "Prison for the poor, probation for the rich"?

By all means, educate. Please describe what you think Equal Justice Under Law means.

Edit: The banker stabbing the cabdriver made major news. You can find plenty of sources for it. The Young Turks also covered it. But again, these are not isolated incidents. This endemic to our judicial system. I brought up Keith Alexander as another obvious example. Being "Tough on Crime" does not seem to include such people.

On December 17 2013 00:35 coverpunch wrote:
You keep talking about a separate judicial class for the rich and have nothing to show for it except a ridiculous story where the charges were dropped because of tainted evidence. That wasn't a case that went to trial and the judge let him off on a technicality. I just don't see it.

Edit: as for government employees like Keith Alexander...well, you've got me there. High officials with the right friends are clearly treated differently from other people, but I dunno if that's the point you're trying to make related to the story of a teenager who gets a plea bargain with no jail time for drunk driving that results in deaths. But I'm not arguing that the system is not unequal. I just think it has more than two tiers.

-The average amount of time spent by a public defender at arraignment is often less than six minutes per case. And that is when counsel is present and allowed to give information, which is not always the case. In many large jurisdictions, over half of all cases are “disposed of.”

-One set of workload recommendations for public defenders suggests 150 felony cases or 400 misdemeanor cases per year. Most jurisdictions across the country exceed these recommendations. In some jurisdictions, public defenders may have more than 300 cases at one time. With such high workloads, it is impossible to represent individual clients while adhering to even minimal standards of professionalism.

Republicans will return to debt limit brinkmanship with a new set of demands to avert default early in 2014, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan signaled on Sunday.

"We as a caucus, along with our Senate counterparts, are going to meet and discuss what it is we want to get out of the debt limit. We don't want nothing out of this debt limit. We're going to decide what it is we can accomplish out of this debt limit fight," Ryan said on "Fox News Sunday," taking a victory lap after his bipartisan budget deal easily passed the House on Thursday.

The Wisconsin Republican's remarks hint that while government shutdowns may be averted for the next two years -- pending Senate passage of the two-year agreement he struck with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) -- the GOP isn't ready to lift the country's borrowing limit without a fight. He indicated that Republicans will come up with their ransom demand when they meet after the holiday recess.

"We're going to meet in our retreats after the holidays and discuss exactly what it is we're going to try and get for this," he said.

David Wildstein, the childhood friend of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) who recently resigned a government position in the midst of scandal, reporteldy purchased multiple web domains earlier this year that bore the names of Christie's foes.

Wildstein left a position with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey earlier this month amid a growing scandal over lane closures he ordered in September on the George Washington Bridge. The closures led to days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J., and critics have alleged that the closure was ordered in retaliation for the mayor of Fort Lee declining to endorse Christie's reelection.

A report Saturday by the Bergen Record newspaper said Wildstein purchased the domains buonosilva.org, and millysilva.com in July. Those sites could have been used by Christie's Democratic rival in the gubernatorial election, Barbara Buono, and her running mate, Milly Silva.

Wildstein also reportedly purchased patfoye.com, which bears the name of Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye, who criticized the lane closures in September.

A federal judge has ruled that the “wholesale collection of the phone record metadata” of all U.S. citizens — a program exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — likely violates the 4th Amendment and is unconstitutional.

In the decision, Judge Leon rules that the plaintiff challenging the bulk collection of U.S. phone records, legal activist and Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, have “demonstrated a substantial likelihood of succession the merits of their Fourth Amendment claims, and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief.” The decision describes the technology used by the Government as “almost-Orwellian.”

Judge Leon explains “[P]laintiff’s have a very significant expectation of privacy in an aggregated collection of their telephony metadata covering the last five years.” Judge Leon notes that “the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection stooped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.” He notes that the “program infringes of ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.” Judge Leon concludes that “the author of our constitution, James Madison…would be aghast.”

The decision was stayed by Judge Leon pending appeal and, therefore, has no immediate effect.

Dec 16 (Reuters) - When Gloria Adams signed a contract to install a rooftop solar power system on her Oahu home in late August, she looked forward to lower electric bills and a return on her investment in the years ahead.

She never dreamed that she would have to stop the project, get the Hawaiian Electric Company's permission before she could proceed, and possibly help pay for any upgrades to her neighborhood's electricity circuits to handle the extra load.

Her home improvement ran afoul of a rule that went into effect in September.

The regulation requires homeowners on Oahu - Hawaii's most populous island - to get the utility's approval before installing photovoltaic (PV) rooftop solar systems.

In areas like Mililani, where Adams lives, the utility's power circuits have reached a threshold where it would be dangerous to add PV systems without investing in upgrades to the distribution system.

"We didn't anticipate having to pay HECO when we took this on," Adams said. "They are acting like they got caught with their pants down, saying, 'We don't know how to deal with this.'"

What's happening in Hawaii is a sign of battles to come in the rest of the United States, solar industry and electric utility executives said. The conflict is the latest variation on what was a controversial issue this year in top solar markets California and Arizona. It was a hot topic at a solar industry conference last week: how to foster the growth of rooftop solar power while easing the concerns of regulated utilities that see its rise as a threat.

The Oahu rule created a dispute between the island's solar power companies and Hawaiian Electric.

Nah, you can easily find articles on this.