VA Governor candidate Northam has an attack add against him claiming that he holds responsibility for the rise of MS13 because he voted for sanctuary cities. My 12 year old ask if that is true. I explained sanctuary cities, and how allowing non-citizens to exist in the US means that MS13 is allowed to be here by extension... he declared the because it is a because of this then take that leap its a logical fallacy. What are they teaching on those horrible public schools?

Oct 5, 2017 08:58:27 PM Ralph Northam,who is running for Governor of Virginia,is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities. Vote Ed Gillespie!

The scene was last night’s dinner for top military commanders and their spouses at the White House. During a group photo before dinner, Trump gestured to the assemblage and asked reporters, “You guys know what this represents?" “Tell us," one reporter responded. “Maybe it’s the calm before the storm," Trump replied. Kristen Welker of NBC News asked, “What storm Mr. President?” “You’ll find out," Trump replied.

The cryptic interchange comes as two nuclear crises are looming: North Korea and now Iran, which the president is reportedly ready to “decertify” as not in compliance with the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and six world powers. “They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement,” Trump said before last night’s dinner with service chiefs and combatant commanders. “We must not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.” When asked directly by a reporter if he had come to a decision on Iran, Trump replied, “You'll be hearing about Iran very shortly.”

td11 wrote:I don't even know what to say about the "Koch brothers are good" posts (they do philanthropy )

I just remind myself that jh also thinks money in politics and gerrymandering are good. There is no point

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:I don't even know what to say about the "Koch brothers are good" posts (they do philanthropy )

I just remind myself that jh also thinks money in politics and gerrymandering are good. There is no point

Money in politics is fine. It's part of people's first amendment right to participate in the political process. I'd support Congress passing some increases in disclosure requirements. It is too often pointed to as a scapegoat.

Gerrymandering is complicated. There are a lot of mutually exclusive neutral objectives of the process. I am not opposed to states passing independent commissions to do it, but I'm not sure in the end we've found the best way to handle it yet. It is too often pointed to as a scapegoat.

JUburton wrote:Speaking of, anyone have any idea how Kennedy is going to rule on this Wisconsin case? Obviously this case was made for him.

Both sides focused their arguments on Kennedy, who has written that overly partisan maps can violate the Constitution but that courts have never had a way to measure when that happens.

He asked Erin Murphy, an attorney for the Wisconsin Legislature, whether it would violate the Constitution for a state to pass a law that required lawmakers to draw maps that gave maximum advantage to one side (while still complying with traditional redistricting principles).

“I’d like the answer to the question," Kennedy said.

Murphy said such a law would violate the Constitution, but emphasized that no such law was in effect in this case.

Wisconsin Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin — a former Kennedy clerk — argued Wisconsin's maps are constitutionally sound and contended a victory by the Democrats would prompt a slew of litigation across the country.

He told the justices the plaintiffs hope to "launch a redistricting revolution" that would force maps around the country to be redrawn.

"I would expect that almost every single map drawn by a legislature will be challenged immediately if plaintiffs prevail," he said by email before Tuesday's arguments.

Those bringing the case disputed that, saying litigation could advance only in states with the most extreme maps.

Chief Justice John Roberts countered that legislatures have long been the ones in most states to determine where political lines are drawn.

“The whole point is you’re taking these issues away from democracy and you're throwing them into the courts," he told the attorney for the group of Wisconsin voters who brought the case.

Youseff wrote: they were contributors to Ken Burns Vietnam doc IIRC.

jerseyhoya wrote:Money in politics is fine.

JUburton wrote:The Wisconsin case hinges on the efficiency gap. Kennedy has, in the past, said he'd be open to partisan gerrymandering cases if there was a fair test the court could apply. I'm sympathetic to the efficiency gap and think they could rule on this without prescribing a specific test to be applied in each case (must be less than 7% or something like that).

It's not perfect by any stretch (democratic clustering is a big issue too), but I'd hope that showing intent to gerrymander politically and a sizable efficiency gap should be enough for violating the equal protection clause. Huge caveat being I am not a constitutional law scholar.