Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[facilitatorn]

I posit there is a correlation between hot climates and incidence of guano crazy.

I would like my Elba Insult Name to be one of these, if possible...

Bolshevik Bart
Rebart
Bartificial
Threadbart
Nostrabartus
Bale o' Bart Talk
The Immoral Bart

 

Napoleon BonaBart. Seems about right, given your need to be important.

You're already Napoleon.

Napoleon could do geometry. Forrest is just short, disagreeable, and trying desperately to pass.

Corsicans are never really French, you know, whatever kind of mark they try to make on history.

Not that Napoleon.

Napoleon the pig, who famously said, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Yup. That nails him to a T, right down to the pig stain on his fat chin.

[kidcarter8]

I posit there is a correlation between hot climates and incidence of guano crazy.

I would like my Elba Insult Name to be one of these, if possible...

Bolshevik Bart
Rebart
Bartificial
Threadbart
Nostrabartus
Bale o' Bart Talk
The Immoral Bart

How about Barton Fink-Nottle? Anything combining the Coens and Wodehouse is aces with me.

CLARA works for me, though it matters not with the ignored

[facilitatorn]

Thank you for your input, skidmarker8.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The justices held 6-3 along ideological lines that two state policies prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”

Is that really the basis for the decision? The AZ laws were struck down under Section 2 of the VRA, which Congress amended in response to Mobile v. Bolden, specifically to apply the statute to discriminatory results, rather than purpose. If that is the basis of the SCOTUS decision they are ignoring the text and history of the statute.

Was there data on results that could have been presented to the Court?  Certainly in the case of "ballot harvesting," there would seem to be data somewhere showing that it disproportionately impacted Indigenous reservations and the ability of voters there to get ballots to the county seat.

The gist of the opinion is a rewriting of the text of Section 2. The Court also ruled that the Appeals.Court erred in instructing the DC to review the question of intent to determine if the AZ legislature.were, essentially, dupes for Race based animus. It is a concept from employment law that allows a Court to look beyond the actual decision maker to find animus.

OK. You don’t want to read the decision.

[LarryBnDC]

Happy Birthday good old USA.....

[LarryBnDC]

lol
Dalai Lama is wrong.
My judgement in seeking love with Mrs bambu was 100% sound.
Data Lama needs to watch more Hallmark movies.

What do you think the Dalai Lama does all day beside sit around and watch hallmark movies? Is there some other path to spiritual peace? If so, please do share. I would be fascinated to hear it.

Doris Day and Rock Hudson in Pillow Talk and Lover Come Back.
No very very short shorts and tattooed legs for Doris.
Classy and respectable attire...today's women should take note...might bring them more peaceful lives.

So much wrong with this post...

[kidcarter8]

Damn!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservatives-laud-scotus-arizona-voting-decision-while-schumer-laments-one-of-the-darkest-days-in-courts


Dillon, herself an immigrant and person of color, rejected the Democrats’ claim that the rules were racist because they made it more difficult for minorities to vote.

"There is no empirical or even logical argument for this," Dillon said, adding that the law makes sure that all votes are counted equally"

[LarryBnDC]

The justices held 6-3 along ideological lines that two state policies prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”

Is that really the basis for the decision? The AZ laws were struck down under Section 2 of the VRA, which Congress amended in response to Mobile v. Bolden, specifically to apply the statute to discriminatory results, rather than purpose. If that is the basis of the SCOTUS decision they are ignoring the text and history of the statute.

Was there data on results that could have been presented to the Court?  Certainly in the case of "ballot harvesting," there would seem to be data somewhere showing that it disproportionately impacted Indigenous reservations and the ability of voters there to get ballots to the county seat.

The gist of the opinion is a rewriting of the text of Section 2. The Court also ruled that the Appeals.Court erred in instructing the DC to review the question of intent to determine if the AZ legislature.were, essentially, dupes for Race based animus. It is a concept from employment law that allows a Court to look beyond the actual decision maker to find animus.

OK. You don’t want to read the decision.

The decision is bullshit and everyone has known this since oral arguments.

This is what Hammond Rye would call “just the rumble and tumble of politics.”


In a hearing on Tuesday (March 2021) , Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked why the Arizona Republican Party was involved in trying to reinstate the law.

“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" she asked.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” replied attorney Michael Carvin, who is representing the Arizona Republican Party. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act) hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

Credit to Carvin for his remarkable honesty.




https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/03/02/arizona-gop-lawyer-admits-real-reason-wants-election-reform/6895380002/

[LarryBnDC]

Damn!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservatives-laud-scotus-arizona-voting-decision-while-schumer-laments-one-of-the-darkest-days-in-courts


Dillon, herself an immigrant and person of color, rejected the Democrats’ claim that the rules were racist because they made it more difficult for minorities to vote.

"There is no empirical or even logical argument for this," Dillon said, adding that the law makes sure that all votes are counted equally"

Bullshit:

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” replied attorney Michael Carvin, who is representing the Arizona Republican Party. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act) hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”


Oral arguments in resp9nse to question Ms. Justice Amy Comey Barrett.

If you can’t straight up, cheat.

[LarryBnDC]

Fucking Moderate Democrats insist on bring enough Republicans over to get to 60 votes while their party is doing its best to make sure fewer Democrats (PoC) vote.

[Holly Martins]

I posit there is a correlation between hot climates and incidence of guano crazy.

I would like my Elba Insult Name to be one of these, if possible...

Bolshevik Bart
Rebart
Bartificial
Threadbart
Nostrabartus
Bale o' Bart Talk
The Immoral Bart

 

Napoleon BonaBart. Seems about right, given your need to be important.

Thanks for helping satisfy that need with your timely reply!   

My craving for importance is evident from the way I post 20 times per day.   No,  wait,  that's YOU.   

Seriously,  I believe every opinion here is important when it reflects a good faith attempt to find some truth. 

[Holly Martins]

I posit there is a correlation between hot climates and incidence of guano crazy.

I would like my Elba Insult Name to be one of these, if possible...

Bolshevik Bart
Rebart
Bartificial
Threadbart
Nostrabartus
Bale o' Bart Talk
The Immoral Bart

How about Barton Fink-Nottle? Anything combining the Coens and Wodehouse is aces with me.

Not bad,  my dear fellow.   Both Coens and Wodehouse are honored in this corner of SD.  I will get all Gussie-d up.   

[Hairy Lime]

The justices held 6-3 along ideological lines that two state policies prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”

Is that really the basis for the decision? The AZ laws were struck down under Section 2 of the VRA, which Congress amended in response to Mobile v. Bolden, specifically to apply the statute to discriminatory results, rather than purpose. If that is the basis of the SCOTUS decision they are ignoring the text and history of the statute.

Was there data on results that could have been presented to the Court?  Certainly in the case of "ballot harvesting," there would seem to be data somewhere showing that it disproportionately impacted Indigenous reservations and the ability of voters there to get ballots to the county seat.

The gist of the opinion is a rewriting of the text of Section 2. The Court also ruled that the Appeals.Court erred in instructing the DC to review the question of intent to determine if the AZ legislature.were, essentially, dupes for Race based animus. It is a concept from employment law that allows a Court to look beyond the actual decision maker to find animus.

OK. You don’t want to read the decision.

Try again, pigeonwit.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.emptywheel.net/2021/07/01/drive-for-show-putt-for-dough-trumps-accountants-putting-method-revealed/

They’re gonna keep squeezing till the orange goon and his whole tree runs dry.

[REDSTATEWARD]

The justices held 6-3 along ideological lines that two state policies prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”

Is that really the basis for the decision? The AZ laws were struck down under Section 2 of the VRA, which Congress amended in response to Mobile v. Bolden, specifically to apply the statute to discriminatory results, rather than purpose. If that is the basis of the SCOTUS decision they are ignoring the text and history of the statute.

Was there data on results that could have been presented to the Court?  Certainly in the case of "ballot harvesting," there would seem to be data somewhere showing that it disproportionately impacted Indigenous reservations and the ability of voters there to get ballots to the county seat.

The gist of the opinion is a rewriting of the text of Section 2. The Court also ruled that the Appeals.Court erred in instructing the DC to review the question of intent to determine if the AZ legislature.were, essentially, dupes for Race based animus. It is a concept from employment law that allows a Court to look beyond the actual decision maker to find animus.

OK. You don’t want to read the decision.

Try again, pigeonwit.

LOL!