|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 14 2018 00:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2018 15:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On August 13 2018 08:36 IgnE wrote:On August 13 2018 06:15 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On August 13 2018 05:48 IgnE wrote:
Liberal freedoms appear more and more as the unfreedom of submission to capital, and it is, I would argue, precisely the divorce of the productive realm from the domain of politics that has led to a profound disenfranchisement — not in the sense of 'the vote', but in the sense of truly sharing in power to make and remake society.
Accepting this as true, how would you specify what the "divorce of the productive realm from the domain of politics?" I would guess that it's related to privatization, or at least that privatization is an example of this in one form; the people losing the control that the government gives them over an industry when it is privatized is what I would see as them losing their share of power in monitoring and reshaping that specific part of society. They (members of the electorate) still have their votes, but are still disenfranchised when looked at from a perspective limited to the privatized industry. Yes, basically, I wouldn't make a simple opposition between 'private' and 'public', meaning State-owned. So it's not so simple as 'the people' losing control that the government gives them. Consider syndicalist or worker-owned enterprises, where employees have a direct ownership stake in the products of their labor. You also have critiques of the American left and right (although the right's was left up to the reader, who you assume understands your position); I don't fully 'get' what you mean when you talk about the left. Are you saying that their idea of giving everyone a fair share at the market and protecting the losers isn't really a different "freedom" than the current order because of the submission to capital and markets that is implied in both? I am saying that a lot of the left, as it currently manifests itself in US politics, is focusing on 'the wrong' things. Or perhaps not "focusing on the wrong things" so much as too simplistic, self-undermining. We need a vital, robust critique of social organization, including capital, not critiques that resuscitate and further sediment the divisions between civil life (aesthetic representation, focus on economic inequality within the liberal order) and political life (e.g. human rights discourse that fails to politicize the very organization of society's production and reproduction, and which is complicit in generating the imperialist dialectic of inside/outside driving capital flows — this is the background against which rights to healthcare, privacy, housing, etc. are conceived) that define liberal democracy. If you switch your views away from fixing the things that can be easily seen as flawed and easily explained to an average voter to more hidden and more difficult problems, can you still count on your fellow citizens to vote for you? I would say that there are some things that cannot be foregone for much time at all, and that this point-term view holds no solution for the current suffering of the people of the United States. One of the things that always stuck with me about GH's insistence on quoting the MLK letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963 was a mention of "setting a timetable for freedom;" how those that are undergoing suffering desire change at the most rapid pace theoretically possible, and not what they are told is feasible or appropriate by someone who is not hurt as much. Besides, any good critique of the capitalist system would take time to develop and explain, and the elderly would have no reason to vote for slower solutions to immediate problems. are you a fellow citizen? are you asking these questions because it's too much trouble for you, yourself, to bother with? this has very little to do with setting a timetable for freedom
I am a fellow citizen, but I'm also too young to drink legally. I ask you because I understand that I am not as knowledgeable or experienced as you, but I still see things I don't understand in what you say. I want to learn, and questioning things that I don't understand is how I work.
I mentioned the timetable for freedom because I thought you meant that the critique of our social organization and how it includes capital as a given would need to become part of the mainstream left's platform for them to have a more well-thought-out solution to the disenfranchisement of voters.
I was trying to think of a way to bring that platform to democratic candidates running for office, but I can't see that kind of argument going far with many voters (then the candidate would lose in the primary, etc.)
|
On August 14 2018 01:10 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 00:09 IgnE wrote:On August 13 2018 17:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 13 2018 15:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On August 13 2018 08:36 IgnE wrote:On August 13 2018 06:15 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On August 13 2018 05:48 IgnE wrote:
Liberal freedoms appear more and more as the unfreedom of submission to capital, and it is, I would argue, precisely the divorce of the productive realm from the domain of politics that has led to a profound disenfranchisement — not in the sense of 'the vote', but in the sense of truly sharing in power to make and remake society.
Accepting this as true, how would you specify what the "divorce of the productive realm from the domain of politics?" I would guess that it's related to privatization, or at least that privatization is an example of this in one form; the people losing the control that the government gives them over an industry when it is privatized is what I would see as them losing their share of power in monitoring and reshaping that specific part of society. They (members of the electorate) still have their votes, but are still disenfranchised when looked at from a perspective limited to the privatized industry. Yes, basically, I wouldn't make a simple opposition between 'private' and 'public', meaning State-owned. So it's not so simple as 'the people' losing control that the government gives them. Consider syndicalist or worker-owned enterprises, where employees have a direct ownership stake in the products of their labor. You also have critiques of the American left and right (although the right's was left up to the reader, who you assume understands your position); I don't fully 'get' what you mean when you talk about the left. Are you saying that their idea of giving everyone a fair share at the market and protecting the losers isn't really a different "freedom" than the current order because of the submission to capital and markets that is implied in both? I am saying that a lot of the left, as it currently manifests itself in US politics, is focusing on 'the wrong' things. Or perhaps not "focusing on the wrong things" so much as too simplistic, self-undermining. We need a vital, robust critique of social organization, including capital, not critiques that resuscitate and further sediment the divisions between civil life (aesthetic representation, focus on economic inequality within the liberal order) and political life (e.g. human rights discourse that fails to politicize the very organization of society's production and reproduction, and which is complicit in generating the imperialist dialectic of inside/outside driving capital flows — this is the background against which rights to healthcare, privacy, housing, etc. are conceived) that define liberal democracy. If you switch your views away from fixing the things that can be easily seen as flawed and easily explained to an average voter to more hidden and more difficult problems, can you still count on your fellow citizens to vote for you?I would say that there are some things that cannot be foregone for much time at all, and that this point-term view holds no solution for the current suffering of the people of the United States. One of the things that always stuck with me about GH's insistence on quoting the MLK letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963 was a mention of "setting a timetable for freedom;" how those that are undergoing suffering desire change at the most rapid pace theoretically possible, and not what they are told is feasible or appropriate by someone who is not hurt as much. Besides, any good critique of the capitalist system would take time to develop and explain, and the elderly would have no reason to vote for slower solutions to immediate problems. Look at the language around racism and identity politics now, for example. People just weren't really thinking in those terms in the mainstream 30-40 years ago. Society is in a different place now, but the leftist political critique of society hasn't changed, improved or updated itself. you have it entirely backwards. 30-40 years ago the leftist antiracist critiques were being made in some of the "mainstream" terms today. the easiest example is "intersectional." you think some non-academics made that up and passed the academics by? What I meant was that academics were thinking about that stuff in the 60s and 70s and that noone else was. Now it is mainstream but the academics don't seem to have moved forward at all.
This isn't true
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/12/keith-ellison-abuse-allegations-774576
Seems more than a little spicy.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on Sunday denied allegations posted on social media accounts linked to the family of his former girlfriend that he had behaved abusively towards her.
Ellison, who is battling four challengers for his party’s nomination in the race for Minnesota attorney general, spoke out through his campaign after a Facebook post alleging past abuse began circulating. The post came from the son of his former girlfriend Karen Monahan.
The post from Austin Monahan’s account, also shared on Twitter by one of Ellison’s challengers in the attorney general race, described video he claimed to have seen showing Ellison “dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her” profane names.
The six-term House Democrat, who is also deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, issued a statement through his campaign denying the existence of the video portrayed in Austin Monahan’s Facebook post.
“Karen and I were in a long-term relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being,” Ellison said in a statement. “This video does not exist because I never behaved in this way, and any characterization otherwise is false.”
Hope its not true. But it would sure be weird for her to just make all this up. Weirder things have happened, but I am afraid this is true. One of the hard things about surging presences like Ellison is that we haven't had as much opportunity to vet them.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
While it certainly seems plausible, that evidence seems pretty tenuous and of the kind that is easily fabricated. I wonder if we'll see anything concrete or if Ms. Monahan herself will speak to the issue.
|
She did speak up supporting her son's allegations (unfortunately it's just outside the article's quoted text).
|
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
|
On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
Here is the Tweet in question.
|
On August 14 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked. Show nested quote +
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028729592767336448Here is the Tweet in question.
Yea his time is done.
|
This article makes an argument I haven't heard before regarding China's position in the global economy:
China Is Cheating at a Rigged Game
In sum, the author argues that China's leadership is desperate to avoid the middle-income trap which has caught other developing countries, where foreign capital is initially attracted by low labor costs before fleeing when standards of living start to rise.
China's leaders try to avoid this fate by aggressively forcing investment into certain sectors of the economy and gaining access to the intellectual property they need to push the country toward greater development through both licit and illicit means.
According to the author competing under this model has led to disastrous effects for labor, not just in in China but also worldwide.
A few excerpts:
The emerging confrontation with China is only the latest sign that something has gone seriously wrong in the global economy. China critics are not wrong that the United States and China are now trapped in a zero-sum competition for economic growth. The problem, however, is not Beijing but the structure of the global economy itself. As it becomes increasingly clear that the existing form of globalization has exhausted its potential to advance development, vilifying China has become a substitute for facing honestly the urgent need to transform the nature of global growth.
...
Chinese leaders have concluded that the only way to manage this dangerous instability is to continue the current trajectory of development and maintain China’s movement to higher-value production. What they fear above all else is that China might fall into the “middle-income trap,” in which a country’s developmental trajectory levels off and stagnates well short of advanced status. Countries such as Egypt, Thailand, and Brazil are mired in such a condition, frustrating the aspirations of their people and giving rise to widespread political turmoil.
...
Feeling their backs against the wall, no amount of pressure from the United States will convince Chinese leaders to give up their development strategy. But why should they? Raising a country from poverty and increasing opportunities for everyone should not be controversial goals. Why, then, are so many in the United States jumping at the chance to condemn China for it? The answer is that, under the existing form of globalization, the only way to achieve development is to “cheat”—where cheating is defined as significant state intervention in the market economy. The only major countries that have achieved a developmental breakthrough are precisely those that have manipulated the terms on offer by the global economy.
...
Yet China’s development strategy has come at a terrible cost. Beijing’s need for foreign investment coincided with a long-term campaign by corporations in the United States, Europe, and Japan to drive down wages and break the power of unions. The availability of cheap Chinese labor allowed those corporations to force workers to accept stagnant pay and deteriorating working conditions under threat of moving production abroad, materially contributing to the collapse of the social contract in the developed countries.
...
[A] solution requires a far deeper rethinking of global growth than politicians on either left or right have contemplated. It requires an end to the race to the bottom: a global regime of labor rights that would distribute the gains from growth more broadly and, at the same time, force corporations to compete by investing in their workers rather than by degrading the conditions of employment. It also requires significant investments in the billions of people currently starved of capital—investments that the free market has refused to make—that would transform those trapped in the slums, the ghettos, and impoverished rural areas into the workers and consumers of tomorrow.
If the author is correct there's no chance the current trade war is going to end well for any of the nations involved.
|
On August 14 2018 04:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028729592767336448Here is the Tweet in question. Yea his time is done.
I'm leaning towards the accusation being legit. Ellison going silent after she messages him about the assault, etc. doesn't look good. I suppose it's possible this is fake and that the messages are doctored, but I don't see where this woman would really have a motive for this.
IMO Ellison should drop out. If he's innocent, he can clear his name and run in the next round. If he's not innocent... he needs to get the fuck out so he doesn't damage the party and the movement any more.
Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair
|
On August 14 2018 04:29 Mercy13 wrote:This article makes an argument I haven't heard before regarding China's position in the global economy: China Is Cheating at a Rigged GameIn sum, the author argues that China's leadership is desperate to avoid the middle-income trap which has caught other developing countries, where foreign capital is initially attracted by low labor costs before fleeing when standards of living start to rise. China's leaders try to avoid this fate by aggressively forcing investment into certain sectors of the economy and gaining access to the intellectual property they need to push the country toward greater development through both licit and illicit means. According to the author competing under this model has led to disastrous effects for labor, not just in in China but also worldwide. A few excerpts: Show nested quote +The emerging confrontation with China is only the latest sign that something has gone seriously wrong in the global economy. China critics are not wrong that the United States and China are now trapped in a zero-sum competition for economic growth. The problem, however, is not Beijing but the structure of the global economy itself. As it becomes increasingly clear that the existing form of globalization has exhausted its potential to advance development, vilifying China has become a substitute for facing honestly the urgent need to transform the nature of global growth.
...
Chinese leaders have concluded that the only way to manage this dangerous instability is to continue the current trajectory of development and maintain China’s movement to higher-value production. What they fear above all else is that China might fall into the “middle-income trap,” in which a country’s developmental trajectory levels off and stagnates well short of advanced status. Countries such as Egypt, Thailand, and Brazil are mired in such a condition, frustrating the aspirations of their people and giving rise to widespread political turmoil.
...
Feeling their backs against the wall, no amount of pressure from the United States will convince Chinese leaders to give up their development strategy. But why should they? Raising a country from poverty and increasing opportunities for everyone should not be controversial goals. Why, then, are so many in the United States jumping at the chance to condemn China for it? The answer is that, under the existing form of globalization, the only way to achieve development is to “cheat”—where cheating is defined as significant state intervention in the market economy. The only major countries that have achieved a developmental breakthrough are precisely those that have manipulated the terms on offer by the global economy.
...
Yet China’s development strategy has come at a terrible cost. Beijing’s need for foreign investment coincided with a long-term campaign by corporations in the United States, Europe, and Japan to drive down wages and break the power of unions. The availability of cheap Chinese labor allowed those corporations to force workers to accept stagnant pay and deteriorating working conditions under threat of moving production abroad, materially contributing to the collapse of the social contract in the developed countries.
...
[A] solution requires a far deeper rethinking of global growth than politicians on either left or right have contemplated. It requires an end to the race to the bottom: a global regime of labor rights that would distribute the gains from growth more broadly and, at the same time, force corporations to compete by investing in their workers rather than by degrading the conditions of employment. It also requires significant investments in the billions of people currently starved of capital—investments that the free market has refused to make—that would transform those trapped in the slums, the ghettos, and impoverished rural areas into the workers and consumers of tomorrow. If the author is correct there's no chance the current trade war is going to end well for any of the nations involved.
yes this is an interesting theory. the first rule of development is under-development. the TPP's intellectual property agreements attempted to box China into a corner, so it seems a bit ironic that Trump, who dimly recognizes Chinese IP and trade as a threat to US dominance, nuked the deal
|
On August 14 2018 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 04:02 Doodsmack wrote:On August 14 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028729592767336448Here is the Tweet in question. Yea his time is done. I'm leaning towards the accusation being legit. Ellison going silent after she messages him about the assault, etc. doesn't look good. I suppose it's possible this is fake and that the messages are doctored, but I don't see where this woman would really have a motive for this. IMO Ellison should drop out. If he's innocent, he can clear his name and run in the next round. If he's not innocent... he needs to get the fuck out so he doesn't damage the party and the movement any more. Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair
Yay I got unbanned! Thank you everyone for your support <3
Agreed with Ellison dropping out. We have a situation now where the dude's wife and son are both saying he's a shitbag. It is kind of weird that we have no evidence yet though.
Part of me can't help but feel like I am saying Ellison, one of the most important people in the DNC right now, should drop out because someone said he's shitty. No evidence yet. She may as well be saying he is Tupac. We have no evidence. It would be strange for this to all be total BS, but weirder things have happened.
Where are you seeing this stuff about him going silent or whatever after the assault? I also can't help but roll my eyes at the fact that this isn't even on the first page of the politics subreddit...
Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair
|
On August 14 2018 06:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 14 2018 04:02 Doodsmack wrote:On August 14 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028729592767336448Here is the Tweet in question. Yea his time is done. I'm leaning towards the accusation being legit. Ellison going silent after she messages him about the assault, etc. doesn't look good. I suppose it's possible this is fake and that the messages are doctored, but I don't see where this woman would really have a motive for this. IMO Ellison should drop out. If he's innocent, he can clear his name and run in the next round. If he's not innocent... he needs to get the fuck out so he doesn't damage the party and the movement any more. Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair Yay I got unbanned! Thank you everyone for your support <3 Agreed with Ellison dropping out. We have a situation now where the dude's wife and son are both saying he's a shitbag. It is kind of weird that we have no evidence yet though. Part of me can't help but feel like I am saying Ellison, one of the most important people in the DNC right now, should drop out because someone said he's shitty. No evidence yet. She may as well be saying he is Tupac. We have no evidence. It would be strange for this to all be total BS, but weirder things have happened. Where are you seeing this stuff about him going silent or whatever after the assault? I also can't help but roll my eyes at the fact that this isn't even on the first page of the politics subreddit... Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair
In a screenshot of a December 2017 text message, which was sent to MPR News by Monahan Sunday evening, Monahan confronts Ellison for the first time that a video exists of the alleged abuse.
"We never discussed — the video I have of you trying to drag me off the bed," Monahan wrote to Ellison, quoting abusive language he allegedly shouted at her.
Ellison did not respond to that message or others that followed.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/08/12/abuse-allegation-made-against-keith-ellison-denies-attorney-general-election
This bit from the original MPR article. Personally, if an ex accused me of assault I think I'd respond and be like WTF and try to understand where they were coming from. Going silent seems like an odd response (or rather, lack of response).
While I wholeheartedly subscribe to innocent until proven guilty, running for office with allegations of sexual assault hanging over you is just a bad idea.
|
While I wholeheartedly subscribe to innocent until proven guilty, running for office with allegations of sexual assault hanging over you is just a bad idea.
So "innocent on probation"? He's either innocent until proven guilty, or he's not. There's no in between. I don't know the entire situation, so i don't have an opinion on whether he's guilty or not, but arguing that "oh totally innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really work if the next word you write is "but".
Apart from that, the entire point doesn't make sense. You (the US) voted someone into presidency who's on tape saying this:
Yeah that's her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case i start kissing her. You know i'm automatically attracted to the beautiful - i just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything.
I mean.. Well.
|
|
|
On August 14 2018 08:46 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 06:09 Mohdoo wrote:On August 14 2018 05:11 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 14 2018 04:02 Doodsmack wrote:On August 14 2018 03:54 Mohdoo wrote:On August 14 2018 03:49 farvacola wrote:
Well in that case, Ellison is likely justifiably fucked.
“What my son said is true. Every statement he made was true,” Monahan tweeted. Addressing Ellison, she added. “you know you did that to me. I have given every opportunity to get help and heal. Even now, u r willing to say my son is lying and have me continue to leak more text and info just so others will believe him.”
https://twitter.com/KarenMonahan01/status/1028729592767336448Here is the Tweet in question. Yea his time is done. I'm leaning towards the accusation being legit. Ellison going silent after she messages him about the assault, etc. doesn't look good. I suppose it's possible this is fake and that the messages are doctored, but I don't see where this woman would really have a motive for this. IMO Ellison should drop out. If he's innocent, he can clear his name and run in the next round. If he's not innocent... he needs to get the fuck out so he doesn't damage the party and the movement any more. Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair Yay I got unbanned! Thank you everyone for your support <3 Agreed with Ellison dropping out. We have a situation now where the dude's wife and son are both saying he's a shitbag. It is kind of weird that we have no evidence yet though. Part of me can't help but feel like I am saying Ellison, one of the most important people in the DNC right now, should drop out because someone said he's shitty. No evidence yet. She may as well be saying he is Tupac. We have no evidence. It would be strange for this to all be total BS, but weirder things have happened. Where are you seeing this stuff about him going silent or whatever after the assault? I also can't help but roll my eyes at the fact that this isn't even on the first page of the politics subreddit... Alsothankgodwedidntelecthimdncchair Show nested quote +In a screenshot of a December 2017 text message, which was sent to MPR News by Monahan Sunday evening, Monahan confronts Ellison for the first time that a video exists of the alleged abuse.
"We never discussed — the video I have of you trying to drag me off the bed," Monahan wrote to Ellison, quoting abusive language he allegedly shouted at her.
Ellison did not respond to that message or others that followed. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/08/12/abuse-allegation-made-against-keith-ellison-denies-attorney-general-electionThis bit from the original MPR article. Personally, if an ex accused me of assault I think I'd respond and be like WTF and try to understand where they were coming from. Going silent seems like an odd response (or rather, lack of response). While I wholeheartedly subscribe to innocent until proven guilty, running for office with allegations of sexual assault hanging over you is just a bad idea.
I think going silent (at least for a bit) is sometimes the right response. Engaging risks turning this into a shouting match that pits your word against other people's word with no evidence with potential lifelong repercussions for you or them if you or they lose their temper-especially if you're not sure what the context for any evidence they claim to have seen (not even claim to have) is.
It's also very easy for direct denial of allegations to be seen as punching down when you're in a position of power and it's word vs. word, which is only a good look if your base enjoys punching down *cough Trump cough*.
At least that's from a pure human perspective. Not so sure about whether that applies to politicians.
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-west-virginia-s-supreme-court-justices-impeached-over-spending-n900461
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — West Virginia lawmakers completed the extraordinary move of impeaching all four state Supreme Court justices Monday night for spending issues, including a suspended justice facing a 23-count federal indictment.
...
Minority Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee that approved the articles last week had tried to speed up the impeachment process in the hopes of beating an Aug. 14 deadline for arranging a special election in November if any justice is removed from office or leaves office. Instead, the committee took its time, even conducting a tour of the state Supreme Court offices earlier this month.
Republican Gov. Jim Justice will be allowed to appoint new justices to replace any who are impeached — with no requirement that they be from the same party as the incumbent.
Pretty much by drawing out this process until past the deadline, the governor gets to appoint judges until the next election, without recourse. It's WV, so a backwards state in any case, but stacking the courts is a helluva way to reduce oversight.
User was warned for this post: see moderator note at top of thread
|
|
|
The senate was always out of reach, the House is where the focus should be.
|
On August 15 2018 01:35 farvacola wrote:
The senate was always out of reach, the House is where the focus should be.
Being out of reach, and losing seats are different things though arent they?
I would thinking going even on the senate is one thing, but to drop a seat strikes me as a bad sign
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
