ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-03-10 09:06 am
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-03-10 09:06 am
Lawless
As I was saying:
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:
If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.
Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:
This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
no subject
g: It appears to be about having a court check whether an anti-fraud program violates the law or not, since it's a disputed issue.
Uh, no, the court determined that the Republicans had been engaging in deliberate suppression of the minority vote, which is why they ended up having to sign a 1982 Consent Decree promising not to do it again. This promise was routinely broken very soon afterwards, resulting in some successful slander cases in 1986 from Texas voters who'd been unfairly accused of being convicted felons, and a Louisiana lawsuit the same year in which a judge observed, "the only reasonable conclusion is that they [the Republican Party] initiated this purge with the specific intent of disenfranchising these blacks of their right to vote."
Paft: And why did the State of Florida settle out of court in that lawsuit brought by all those Floridians who were barred from voting in 2000?
g: Which lawsuit are you referring to?
State of Florida VS NAACP, settled out of court in 2002.
Can you cite me the court cases resulting from the links you've posted, and the conclusions?
no subject
From what I've read, that does not appear to be true.
This doesn't appear to support your assertion.
Can you for yours?
no subject
g: From what I've read, that does not appear to be true. "A joint statement by the plaintiffs, which included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the state and local elections officials named as defendants called the resolution "a fair and equitable settlement of all the outstanding issues. The settlement, which must be approved by U.S. District Judge Alan Gold, mostly expands on reforms already adopted by elections officials after the widespread confusion of the 2000 election....This doesn't appear to support your assertion.
???
How does this quote about the NAACP lawsuit show my assertion about the 1982 Consent Degree to be "untrue?"
g: Can you for yours?...
I've already cited two. The consent decree can be found referenced extensively in the following link:
http://obama.3cdn.net/bfd196d021540c0a60_i2m6bnkiz.pdf
As for the slander lawsuits, those were back in the '80s, so it's difficult, barring a visit to a local library to find direct cites for them.