Open Thread: SCOTUS Christmas 2013

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In the next two days, we're likely going to get two rulings of significance to the United States:

* Cases regarding California's Proposition 8, a citizen-led ballot initiative which banned gay marriage in the state, and a case regarding the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed through Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, which allows states the ability to choose to not recognize marriages in other states and codifies marriage as between a man and a woman in regards to federal benefits on the national level. The Proposition 8 case is Hollingsworth v. Perry and the DOMA case is United States v. Windsor.

* A case regarding the "preclearance" portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which requires certain localities to submit changes to voting procedure to the Department of Justice for clearance before implementation. A basic overview is here, via the New York Times.

The Supreme Court ruled on an affirmative action case yesterday, and sent the case back to Texas for further review while showing some further hostility regarding racial preferences of any sort, a hallmark of the Roberts Court. Whether that gives any insight into how the Court will rule regarding the VRA, I don't know, but oral arguments at least suggested that there are five votes to overturn section 5, with Breyer being an unlikely but possible 6th vote.

Regarding the gay marriage cases, there's a decent chance that few, if anyone, will go home completely happy on the matter. Court watchers that I follow on both ends of the spectrum have predicted that DOMA is overturned and Proposition 8 is dismissed on grounds of standing (given the strange path of those trying to push the case through as well as defend it), although a good argument can be made on the basic merits that DOMA should stay in place and Proposition 8 is upheld, but I think we might end up seeing DOMA overturned but Prop 8 upheld if the standing issue is not in the way. Much of the debate on the issue has been less about the Constitution and more about the Court being on "the right side of history" and of policy discussions - discussions that will likely be moot within the end of the decade anyway.

Anyhow, open thread. Thoughts on these cases, other cases, and so on welcome.

As I was Saying...

[paft.livejournal.com]

I was sorry to see that my original post was removed. Unfortunately, I was not at my desk when I was notified of the problem, so I could not alter it in time. Here is an amended version:

Remember Donny Ferguson, the Steve Stockman's aide who took the SNAP challenge and declared it a snap?

Well, it turns out he couldn't actually manage it.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/on-food-stamp-challenge-stockman-aide-busted-budget-but.html/

But Ferguson, who bought his food and planned his meals at the beginning of the week, ran into a problem when attempting to travel –

Foiled by TSA. Can’t bring my #SNAPChallenge food on the plane with me, and I’m not paying $50 for the privilege of losing checked luggage.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 21, 2013

His solution? Since SNAP funding breaks down to $4.50 a day, Ferguson limited himself to $9 in meals while traveling.

#snapchallenge Update, Day 5: On the road. Buying $9 of food for dinner tonight and Saturday and Sunday.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 22, 2013

The Huffington Post noticed Ferguson’s tweet and pointed out that adding $9 to the original bill of $27.58 brought Ferguson beyond the $31.50 budget.

In the end Ferguson spent an additional $8.45 — $6.70 to feed himself and the rest to buy two cans of pork and beans for a local food bank. He spent $36.03 in total, going about 14 percent over budget.

In short, he discovered that a single unforeseen circumstance can toss you off the SNAP budget.

And yes, that unforeseen circumstance could quite possibly include a SNAP recipient taking a flight. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to imagine someone on SNAP taking a bereavement flight in the event of a family emergency. (I took one last autumn, after a close relative was diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer. Coast to coast for $10.) Nor does it break the bonds of credulity to imagine some other unforeseen event taking place that could have the effect of forcing the recipient to spend more than what is allotted by SNAP.

Not that this matters, of course, because we've reached the stage where, for many on the American right, it's about whether or not people are worthy of being fed -- not whether or not they can feed themselves adequately. We seem to be approaching a mindset similar to the old British poor laws, in which recipients were deliberately starved and humiliated on the dubious grounds that poverty is an indication of of laziness, shiftlessness, or some other moral malaise.

It is my opinion that the issue should not be whether or not we approve of everyone who gets aid. It should be whether or not they need it.

.

Compassion anyone?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I cannot understand this whole SNAP debacle that is being played out and talked about. I do not understand how ANYONE can be against feeding the hungry. I am willing to concede that there will be waste and fraud. I cannot imagine what system(s) would not have *some* waste and fraud. That said, waste and fraud are bad, but, let's not go throwing the baby out with the bath water, eh?

Food is NOT an option for people. Neither is water. These two things are HUMAN RIGHTS as far as I am concerned. Nobody, anywhere, should be deprived of access to food and water. And you know what, these things, in their most basic form (ie. basic food staples, not fancy food feasts), should be free. That's right, free. For *every single person*.

I understand that to some cold-hearted demons out there, people only deserve food and water if they *work* for it. Well fuck that. Work is not the pre-requisite, IMO, for food or water. Those should be denied to NOBODY.

I have a question to ask folks here, and I'm not sure I will be able to stomach the responses, but here goes:

Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?