#i will only abide by the outcome of the poll if i feel like it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theliberaltony · 6 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, managing editor): As far as we know, Republicans are pushing ahead with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court — for the moment, anyway — amid accusations of sexual assault and misconduct from at least two women. Nate made a semi-compelling argument that that’s a bad move politically. The counter-argument was succinctly expressed by Washington Free Beacon editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in an interview with Politico:

“A defeated Kavanaugh nomination would not only demoralize the conservative base, it could seriously jeopardize Trump’s relationship with the conservative legal movement, and that could be crippling for conservative influence in the Trump era.”

So, that’s our question for today: If President Trump withdrew Kavanaugh’s nomination, would that depress conservative turnout in the midterms? And somewhat relatedly, would it have a long-term effect on “Trump’s relationship with the conservative legal movement”?

Give me your topline views, and then we can get into it.

Also, welcome, politics editor Sarah Frostenson, to your first politics chat!!!

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Hello, hello!

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): My topline view is that:

It might be partially true, but probably also exaggerated by commentators who are extrapolating their own personal investment in seeing Kavanaugh confirmed to feelings among “the voters” or “the base.”

Even if it’s partly true, the alternatives for the GOP could be a lot worse.

The base might be despondent initially, but there’d be an opportunity to rectify that if Trump successfully rolled out another conservative candidate.

micah: Having a topline view with three parts is very on-brand.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Trump has appointed a huge number of conservative judges to the federal courts, most notably Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The conservative legal movement will be fine with him as long as he keeps doing that, so replacing Kavanaugh with another conservative would do the trick. And I think there is very limited evidence that conservative voters, as opposed to conservative activists, are motivated by Supreme Court nominations.

sarahf: Damn, I think Perry took some of my topline views.

I would add, though, that given the partisan divide on issues of sexual misconduct, Kavanaugh withdrawing or President Trump asking for him to withdraw (which I think is unlikely) could backfire among the base.

perry: So you think Republican voters will be turned off because they think Trump would be bowing to liberal views on sexual harassment/misconduct/assault.

micah: Yeah, and maybe that plays more of a role in how the GOP base reacts than their views on the Supreme Court.

sarahf: Yes, I think that could happen. They might see him as weak, giving into liberals, etc.

micah: OK, so let’s take each of those one by one …

First, the idea that Republican/conservative voters really care about the Supreme Court — more so than Democratic voters — does have some evidence to back it up, right?

perry: So the exit polls from 2016 would seem to say that. Among voters who said Supreme Court appointments were the most important factor in their vote — about one-fifth of all voters — Trump beat Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 41 percent. Among the 14 percent who said such appointments were “not a factor at all,” Clinton won 55-37.

Still, I think this is a bit of a misnomer. How much did Clinton talk about the Supreme Court? How much did liberal activists prioritize the court during the campaign? I don’t have a study on this, but my guess is less than Republicans. Remember, Trump felt compelled to put out a list of his likely Supreme Court nominees before he was elected. The court is a core part of the GOP’s campaign message.

Also, it’s a lot easier to say, “I’m deciding who to vote for because of the Supreme Court or abortion,” rather than, “because I have negative attitudes about blacks and Latinos,” which we know motivates a lot of conservative voting.

natesilver: The other issue with that exit poll result is that when you ask voters to volunteer a list of which issues are most important to them, the Supreme Court barely registers.

So, sure, when you remind people about the Supreme Court, many of them say it’s important. And Republicans are a bit more inclined to say so than Democrats, which isn’t meaningless. But it isn’t generally a top-of-mind issue.

perry: It is true, though, that if you wanted to accurately describe Trump’s base or the Republican base, white evangelicals would be a big part of the description. But I don’t know if it follows that therefore because white evangelicals are the base, abortion/LGBT issues motivate them, as opposed to taxes, immigration, health care, etc.

natesilver: Or just overall tribal behavior. They’ve clearly forgiven a lot of Trump’s sins because he’s on their “team.”

micah: Let’s posit for the moment that the prioritization of the Supreme Court among rank-and-file GOP voters is overblown — isn’t it still a priority among GOP activists, Sarah? And doesn’t Trump have to worry about that?

Like, I’m not sure if there’s data to back this up, but I feel pretty confident in saying that Republican activists are more engaged on the courts than Democratic activists.

sarahf: He does, but I would counter that he’s already done quite a bit to remake the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court gets all the attention, but if we look at the lower federal courts, we can see that 26 of Trump’s federal appeals court picks have been confirmed (more than any other recent president at this point in their first term).

micah: Yeah, so it’s unlikely they would abandon him over this?

sarahf: Plus, there’s 142 vacancies to fill across the federal judiciary. More than 100 in U.S. District Courts alone!

perry: Micah, it’s a common view that conservative activists care more about the courts than liberal activists, in part because the Federalist Society has an outsized role on the right, and I don’t think the American Constitution Society (the liberal equivalent) has that same role on the left. But the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, for example, is pretty focused on judges and the law, and it is longstanding and influential.

I would say, though, that Trump has been more invested in appointing judges in his first two years in office than Barack Obama was.

I think we can say that confidently.

sarahf: And to Perry’s point, I think this registers with his evangelical base.

natesilver: We’re also having this fight over Kavanaugh against a backdrop where we’re in the midst of what looks like it’s going to be a blue midterm, maybe even a wave year for Democrats. And that tends to color voters’ impressions of everything.

Because the public is skeptical of Trump and the GOP overall, everything they do is going to be taken in a more skeptical light.

So some fights that might be winnable in, say, 2014 might have a lot more downside for Republicans this year.

micah: OK, but Nate, how do you square the exit poll results showing people who cared about the Supreme Court most overwhelmingly backed Trump with the open-ended Gallup question finding hardly anyone thinks of it off the top of their head?

natesilver: If you ask someone about something, of course they’re gonna be more cognizant of it.

It’s kind of like if I ask you, “How important is personal fitness to you?” Most people are going to say it’s “somewhat” or “very” important. But a lot of those “somewhat important” people probably aren’t going to the gym, aren’t really watching their diet, etc.

micah: It’s very important to me!

I play basketball every day!

Oh, you meant in general.

natesilver: I’m not making an accusation about you personally, Micah, but nice #humblebrag.

micah: lol

sarahf: That’s fair criticism, but we are talking about a conservative majority on the highest court in the land. It could be that it really does matter to Republican voters more this time around.

natesilver: But, Sarah, if they don’t get Kavanaugh, they probably get … someone equally conservative. Or maybe more conservative.

Unless they screw it up by spending several weeks fighting this possibly very stupid fight, to the point where they jeopardize the timing of his replacement.

sarahf: Right, and the bench they have to pull from isn’t weak; this is from July:

Yeah, it’s 41 days until the midterms? Democracy moves slow. I think the reluctance of the GOP to move on from Kavanaugh is tied to that.

perry: There is a core of Republican voters who care deeply about, say, limiting abortion and were not happy with the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. I just think people who volunteer for campaigns and knock on doors are pretty politically active and will not make the weird decision of not voting Republican simply because Trump, who has executed lots of GOP policies, isn’t able to get Kavanaugh through. They might be annoyed. But the idea that they will not vote at all seems far-fetched. The people I would worry about if I were Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are voters who backed Trump in 2016 but often stay home at midterms and might do so again. I doubt that group is following every development in this story.

natesilver: Plus, there’s the chance that Trump doesn’t abide by the script and nominates Thomas Hardiman, who’s more moderate than some of the other names on the short list, or something. But, again, this isn’t about finding a good outcome for the GOP; it’s about cutting their losses.

micah: OK, so let’s talk about Sarah’s point that this could be viewed by GOP voters as Trump caving on a cultural issue more than about the court in particular.

There’s definitely evidence that cultural issues have a lot of sway with voters, no?

natesilver: I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural issues” — but, sure, in some sense cultural issues (especially if we recognize the very, very strong overlap between “culture” and race) is the whole reason Trump was elected.

perry: I’m not sure. But if I were Sens. Ted Cruz or Dean Heller, I would not equivocate on this issue and suggest that I believe Christine Blasey Ford (the woman who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school). Just in terms of politics, I do think the GOP base expects Republican politicians to view sexual misconduct claims skeptically, particularly those made against Republican men.

sarahf: Perry wrote this piece earlier in the week: Republicans largely don’t believe Ford’s accusations are credible.

natesilver: At the same time, #MeToo has also been challenging to a lot of male elites. They clearly care about it a lot. And, again, there’s probably a lot of transference wherein they assign their own feelings to those of the amorphous base.

micah: How does Trump figure into all this?

natesilver: I think the best thing Trump could do for the GOP is to stay the hell out of it.

He’s absolutely the last person you want talking about the credibility of women accusers.

But, yeah, if he invests himself too much in the story, it becomes more painful for Republicans to fail to confirm Kavanaugh.

perry: He was literally criticizing one of the accusers while this chat was happening.

natesilver: I know. And if McConnell is sort of play-acting and ultimately would be just as happy to replace Kavanaugh with someone else, Trump is a big wild card there.

micah: Nate, you and Trump and McConnell are not on the same page.

natesilver: I’m not sure that “Cocaine Mitch” and I aren’t on the same page.

micah: We argued about this on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, but I don’t see how you square Mitch’s actions so far with a strategy of ditching Kavanaugh?

natesilver: There’s a good chance he’s trying to save face.

He may also be trying to expedite the process so that Kavanaugh gets voted up or down (or has to be withdrawn) within a week instead of after several weeks.

I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that McConnell reportedly didn’t want Kavanaugh to be chosen originally.

I give him some credit for just being a good overall strategist who sees a couple of moves ahead.

perry: I understand Nate’s argument, but I found McConnell’s remarks on Friday (in a speech with conservative activists, he pledged that Republicans would “plow right through” the opposition to Kavanaugh and get him confirmed) to be somewhat in tension with that. But maybe the remarks were part of the strategy.

He does think ahead. I agree.

natesilver: Yeah, I will say — I was more convinced of the McConnell-is-bluffing theory before the story got so much more involved with the new accusers and Trump tweeting and everything else.

Maybe now McConnell has to commit to the bit.

sarahf: I dunno. I think that at this point, McConnell is busy on doing what he has to do to get Kavanaugh nominated. He might have had reservations about him initially, but I think all signs point to him pushing this through. This was written before news of other allegations broke, but I haven’t seen any reporting that makes me think this isn’t still the case.

micah: +1

OK, to wrap up: If the consensus here is that the danger to Republicans in the midterms of pulling Kavanaugh is overblown, is the same true of the danger of pushing him through?

In other words, would voters who are currently GOP-leaning or at least open to voting for a Republican candidate react negatively to Kavanaugh getting confirmed? (Obviously Democrats would.)

natesilver: I’m not sure you necessarily encounter a point of diminishing returns. If, I don’t know, 60 percent of women are slated to vote Democratic for Congress, there’s still 40 percent of women who aren’t yet planning to do so.

It’s also always probably true that pundits (and data journalists?) overrate the long-term electoral importance of whatever the story of the day is. Although we’re close enough to Nov. 6 that this may be fairly fresh in voters’ minds.

perry: It is hard for me to see a bad political outcome here for Democrats. Their base is angry about this issue and will likely be more so if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year in red states — Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp, for example — know their states better than I do, but it’s difficult for me to see a “no” vote on Kavanaugh hurting them. Cruz has to vote “yes,” as does Heller, but I don’t think they will be eager to defend that vote.

sarahf: The question of undecided voters is an important one. And on the subject of Kavanuagh, more than a quarter of voters say they don’t know enough to have an opinion, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News conducted last week. But the latest polls definitely aren’t good news for Kavanaugh (and this was before the New Yorker story). That WSJ/NBC poll found that 38 percent of registered voters oppose the Kavanaugh nomination, up from 29 percent in August. Below is a table from an article we did on Kavanaugh’s declining popularity (including the shift in the WSJ/NBC poll):

Early signs that Kavanaugh’s popularity has dipped

Polls of Brett Kavanaugh’s approval conducted before and after Sept. 16, when The Washington Post published Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault

Net Support Pollster Before AFter Change NBC/WSJ +4 -4 -8 Morning Consult +5 +1 -4 HuffPost/YouGov -6 -4 +2 Ipsos -3 -9 -6

micah: Yeah, the Journal article on the poll said “college-educated women are particularly sour on Mr. Kavanaugh: 49% of them oppose his nomination, while 28% support it.”

natesilver: There’s a decent argument that even though Kavanaugh might be unpopular, he isn’t any more unpopular than Trump or, say, the GOP’s health care bill.

At the same time, there’s this:

You've watched us produce a string of pretty good results for the Democrats over the last week. It's only two polls being released today, but it may be that other polls in the field over the same period might be finding a similar lurch to the left

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) September 25, 2018

Lot of particularly bad polls for the GOP this week, especially in upscale suburban-type places.

sarahf: But Gallup found that the Republican Party’s favorability rating among Americans is the highest it’s been in more than seven years?

The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is 1 point, but still!

micah: That was weird.

perry: That was interesting

natesilver: Yeah, I’m not sure what to make of that.

micah: On that note! Final thoughts?

natesilver: I get that there are a lot of Republican elites who would love to see Kavanaugh confirmed and who don’t want to back down from a fight. I think they ought to think about whether this is really the hill they want to die on.

perry: Always be skeptical of claims that are along the lines of party X will face a huge electoral backlash unless they follow my policy position Y. You will see a lot of conservative pundits who are very invested in legal issues say that rank-and-file voters are following this stuff closely and will stay home unless Kavanaugh is on the court next month. I doubt that voters are really thinking this way. (Dem strategists do it too.)

sarahf: My main final thought: I look forward to moderating these chats (rather than having to answer questions).

But in terms of the real question at hand, I think conservatives think they have more to lose (a conservative majority on the Supreme Court) from abandoning Kavanaugh’s nomination than from ramming him through.

Plus, I think there’s enough evidence to show that the Republican Party doesn’t really see the allegations against Kavanaugh as a problem, which is reflected in how party leaders have chosen to combatively press onward.

micah: FIN

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

1 note · View note

ericvick · 3 years

Photo

Walsh: Metropolis ready for predicted file turnout at polls tomorrow

A lot more than a 3rd of Bostonians have presently solid their ballots forward of tomorrow’s state and presidential election as metropolis officials get ready for in-particular person voting on Tuesday amid amplified security actions.

Shut to 159,000 voters have turned in their decisions, bringing the early turnout to 36.5 p.c of all registered voters,” Mayor Walsh explained through a Monday morning press convention at Town Corridor.

“Four a long time ago, our in general turnout was 66.75 %, so it appears like we will at least fulfill if not shatter that record tomorrow,” he mentioned. “We are committed to making confident that voting is risk-free and accessible. It’s the cornerstone of our democracy and the suitable to self-determination that we believe in. We’re doing regardless of what it will take to safeguard our legal rights and harmless obtain to ballot containers.”

There are 432,000 Bostonians registered to vote, up from 415,500 in 2016 55,716 inhabitants cast their votes in the course of early in-man or woman voting, and as of Sunday, 103,268 mail-in ballots (of 192,000 requested) experienced been returned to Town Corridor.

The Elections Department is continuing to count votes and prepare polling destinations for Tuesday. Any person who even now has not sent in their mail-in ballot can total it and place it in a person of the city’s 17 dropbox places through 8 p.m. on Tuesday. The metropolis will settle for mail-in ballots that arrive in the mail by Friday, but only if they had been postmarked by Tues., Nov. 3.

Voters who bring their mail-in ballots to a polling site tomorrow will be asked to vote in particular person as an alternative. Poll personnel will get the mail-in ballot, void it, and trade it for a new one particular to be stuffed out there.

In-person voting will be available from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at 225 precincts citywide.

The broad the vast majority of people today will vote at their regular precincts, though 20 polling locations have been modified (as they ended up in the state’s most important election.) Inhabitants who voted in a distinctive web site in the most important balloting will vote at these exact locations on Tuesday. Polling places can be found at boston.gov/elections.

Ballots will be available at the polls in English, Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and translators will be on web site to assist any individual needing translation products and services in Haitian Creole, Cabo Verde Creole, Russian, and Portuguese.

The metropolis has established a “dedicated voter hotline” – 617-635-VOTE (8683) for anyone who has voting-associated thoughts on Election Day.

On Monday, Walsh reported that all of the polls will be geared up to protect personnel and voters from the coronavirus that has been spiking in the city and across the commonwealth around the last six months. Dorchester posted the best covid-19 take a look at amount previous week, at 11.9 %, very well above the citywide typical of 7.9 per cent. More than the weekend 112 new scenarios had been recorded, bringing the city’s caseload to 20,607.

“It’s a challenging week to concentration on Covid-19 with all that’s occurring with our elections, but we have to remain vigilant,” reported Walsh. “Every polling locale is set up to stick to Covid safety recommendations and supply obtain to folks with disabilities. Polling internet sites will be cleaned a number of times in the course of the day All spots are prepared for actual physical distancing with crystal clear signage and flooring markings and all poll personnel have been issued PPE, including confront shields, tends to make, gloves, disinfectant and hand sanitizer.”

All those voting in particular person will be demanded to use a mask or facial area covering and abide by social distancing protocols. “I’m inquiring people— don’t check out to go and make a political statement tomorrow by heading into vote with no a mask,” explained Walsh. “I’m inquiring you to dress in a mask. Have the courtesy for the poll staff, the people all over you, and the family members that are coming there.”

A police officer will be stationed within each polling area, as is customary, Walsh observed.

“The law enforcement are there to safeguard the capacity of people to exercise their proper,” he explained. “We’re monitoring conversations across the nation about opportunity voter intimidation at polls. We do not have any facts about threats below in Boston, but I want to make it apparent that voter intimidation is towards the legislation and it won’t be tolerated.

“If you are exterior of your polling area campaigning on behalf of a prospect we’re asking you to regard the views of some others. There is a great deal of pressure all-around the election, far more than I have at any time found or felt in my lifetime,” mentioned Walsh. “Much of it is anticipation of the results of the presidential election, and for the reason that of Covid, that procedure has been additional hard.”

City officers will article unofficial election success on line on Tuesday night, despite the fact that the Elections Office will be counting mail-in and absentee ballots for quite a few days afterward.

“Mail in ballots do not essentially modify the method. They are dealt with like common absentee ballots— which is how we’ve generally counted the votes of the navy users and those voting abroad and out of point out,” said Walsh.

Voters should not be amazed if there is not a distinct national final result of the presidential election on Tuesday night or for quite a few days following, explained Walsh.

“That does not mean that the voting approach is damaged or compromised in any way. In this unique year, it appears like we’re going to be placing a document in the country for turnout in a countrywide election. I suggest everyone to be well prepared for the approach to acquire some time,” he mentioned.

The mayor recommended voters to “think through” their reactions to the outcomes of the presidential election. “I see a good deal of stress in our state proper now in between Covid, all of the undercurrents of systemic racism, and a presidential election that’s been at the forefront of a great deal of people’s minds for a very long time,” he explained. “Whether you like the final results or not, there will be strong emotions on all sides tomorrow. We ought to get care of ourselves, households, and group, and we must reply peacefully.”

Boston law enforcement officers will be lively citywide for the duration of and just after Election Working day, Walsh reported. Law enforcement Commissioner William Gross included that BPD is doing the job in partnership with federal and state law enforcement entities.

“We want you to be cozy with the truth that the Boston Law enforcement Department will cover all of the poll sites in accordance to metropolis ordinances,” Gross claimed. “We want everybody to know that we also have coverage in the neighborhoods for the community, which includes at spots of worship, educational facilities, and hospitals.

“You are not likely to see an overwhelming existence of law enforcement officers,” Gross mentioned, adding: “We really do not want any individual to sense intimidated by the police. Each and every election, you have law enforcement officers at the poll. We do have protocols in put if things do go to the facet of civil unrest or violent protests that we’re heading to apply in the city.”

Gross verified that BPD is well prepared to deploy “a staffing stage that will accommodate calls to services, guard neighborhoods, corporations and voting polls till we have the success of the election.”

“If added patrols are wanted, we have the property for that,” he stated.

Walsh mentioned it’s “too early to be concerned about demonstrations,” when requested about the opportunity need to simply call on point out or federal companies if protests come up.

“There’s no cause to feel you can find trigger for issue. We’re all cautiously optimistic that Election Working day will be incident totally free but we want to really encourage inhabitants to contact if there are fears,” he explained.

“We have an election tomorrow and we’re inquiring all people to arrive out and vote and training your appropriate, and we’ll be geared up for whichever occurs immediately after the election.”

window.fbAsyncInit = operate() FB.init( appId: "270847243020841", position: accurate, cookie: real, xfbml: accurate, oauth : legitimate, channelUrl: "https://www.dotnews.com/fb_social/channel" )

FB.Party.subscribe("edge.develop", perform(href, widget) _gaq.force(["_trackEvent", "Facebook like", "Drupal", href]) )

(functionality() var e = document.createElement('script') e.async = true e.src = document.area.protocol + '//hook up.facebook.web/en_US/all.js' doc.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e) ())

#file #metropolis #polls #predicted #ready #tomorrow #turnout #Walsh

0 notes

anewpoliticalspin · 4 years

Text

Which side has been the feel-good side? Sometimes, conservatives

I am a former American Republican. I wholeheartedly believed the saying that “If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.”

I thought that liberals were people who needed to toughen up and accept hard truths. A common conservative belief is that liberals don’t accept “the way the world works”.

I thought this for a long time. Then, the advent of Donald Trump, well, turned my world upside-down and made me have to rebuild from the bare bottom up my entire worldview on politics.

After all, you always know something by it’s outcome. The right vision leads to the right results. Or, the reverse, as can be. Which we’ve seen. Ever heard of “garbage in, garbage out”?

I started to rethink whether, in present-day America, conservatives really had a mature, tough, worldview. Mind you that a political faction can change a lot over the years.

Liberal or conservative?

1) I’m going to start with an easy one. It’s human-created global warming. It already has, and will, lead to lost lives. Countless of them. It threatens the well-being of many, many across the globe. The scientific evidence is also out there and there is close to 100% agreement.

Wouldn’t logic tell you anyway, even if you’re not a scientist, that putting out high numbers of smog every day would have some kind of effect? Which party has accepted this difficult truth, and which party has denied it?

2) Which is an easier truth to accept in the case of an unsuccessful war, that we’ve hit our terrorist targets (for the most part), or that we’ve also hit a lot of innocent civilians?

Think about our War in Afghanistan. Isn’t a war successful when its over? Afghanistan was and still is, being fought for, 19 years (surprisingly, yes. It’s the longest war in US history! Did you know that?)

You’ve also got to be tough to be honest with yourself about war when it is taking innocent lives. That takes strength to see. Seeing the honest suffering of innocent civilians, and maybe at the hands of our drones strikes, might cut at our hearts because we can only imagine how it would feel if it were to happen on our soil.

Think back to Vietnam, too.

3) Is it tough to say, “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.” (This was Newt Gingrich, by the way)

Or, is it tough to say, the working poor (most of the poor are working and not unemployed) are working hard, and still struggling to get by? That they have demanding, low-paying jobs, and are still struggling.

Yes, people are sometimes poor due to their own choices, and need to help themselves. Only sometimes, though. Sometimes, they have had hard luck. We can use a belief about the poor in the wrong way.

4) “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”Before we go anywhere, let me say first that I am not saying we should have an absolute ban on guns. They may sometimes have their place. I’m just saying, having unfettered legal access to both owning guns and almost any type of gun has it’s consequences. It’s an important distinction.

I used to think too on the logic that “law-abiding citizens are law abiding citizens, and criminals will always get guns illegally anyway”.This puts the focus on criminals. But I think we do have to worry about law-abiding citizens too. It’s not just street criminals who misuse guns, and people who get them illegally. Mentally ill people will borrow from a family member, as Adam Lanza did from his mother before the Sandy Hook shooting. Kids will find them from their parents. People will obtain a weapon legally bought from someone else, as the Columbine shooters did.

By the way, gun control legislation has been found effective in many nations that have tried it.

Just think of this. Which takes more guts, and honest soul-searching, to believe?“Guns don’t kill, people do” “Guns can help kill people, and can make it worse”

Lastly, do you think it says something that we have had a number of mass shootings over the last two decades much higher that any other developed country, and we have the laxest gun laws and highest guns ownership?

5) Who is tougher, the then Vice Presidential candidate runner who says:

“Donald Trump and I believe there’s been far too much of this talk of institutional bias or racism within law enforcement. That police officers are human beings. In difficult and life threatening situations, mistakes are made and people have to be held to strict account,“, and then "we ought to set aside this talk about institutional racism and institutional bias.”

Or Hillary from this article:

But the former secretary of state said the “systemic racism in our criminal justice system” needs to be addressed.She added that “implicit bias” is a “problem for everyone, not just police.” But since encounters with police can have “literally fatal consequences,” she believes the federal government could be in a position where it would “offer and provide” more support and training.

Who is tougher? The person who says “we don’t need to talk about”? Or the one who says “we do, and we’ll find a way”?

By the way, I say this because when you look at the statistics of who is pulled over by officers, in identical situations, and the disproportionate numbers, I think you start to see how the only explanation is bias. There are reputable studies on this here, here, and here.

and it’s a big problem. When something is a large enough problem, the answer has got to be to take action, and have a real conversation about it, not to say there has been too much talk about it.

6) Who is tougher, in this debate that was had? The person who asks that tough question, the one posited to Ron Paul? Or, maybe, someone who gives the answer he gives? This is taken from this article.

This was the question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:

“A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

"Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?”

The question was directed to Paul, who is a physician. The exchange continued like this:

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

A few in the crowd hollered and at least a couple screamed, “Yeah.”

Paul responded, “No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.”

Yet, is this always what happens? Do churches always have the funds and means to take care of the poor?

7) Plastic bags. We as Americans use 100 billion plastic bags, and just in one year. That has to go somewhere and has plenty of costs. The blue state of California has enacted a ban on plastic bags. Many nations have also implemented a ban, or something close to one.

That was some courageous action they were willing to take, and I think shows commitment to facing and fighting a difficult truth about plastic bag usage.

8) Conservatives are less likely than liberals to believe that the Israeli government has a discriminatory treatment of Palestinians.

9) Lastly, what if we take an issue at random, and see the response to it by each side, I think that can be very telling.

Take the issue of sexism From this article, Poll: Republicans see equality for women. Democrats don’t.More than half of Democratic voters, 55 percent, think men are better off than women in the U.S. — but only a fifth of Republicans shared that view. I think this is a good indicator of a party’s overall mindset and approach to difficult issues.

What I’ve seen in the Republican Party, for some time, has been an overall philosophy, and one that can be pretty cavalier, and even avoidant and uncompassionate. It’s been a tough it out philosophy.

It’s one that has avoided discussion of unpleasant facts and difficult truths, especially ones related to the hard circumstances of people.

After seeing everything, who has been tougher?

The Republican Party has gone wayward, and needs to pull themselves back.

P.s. Someone else noticed a lot of these things, and I got my inspiration from him.. It was actually one article that changed my views. Just one, that opened my eyes. “Confessions of a former Republican” by Jeremiah Goulka. He talked about how conservatives had to “take off their rose-colored glasses”. He talked about the “wool being pulled off his eyes” in a logical, no nonsense, pragmatic way.

I take his word at it.

0 notes

fixomnia-scribble · 7 years

Text

Blue Bloods 8.3

“The Enemy of My Enemy”

I find your lack of Jamko...disturbing.

Can Erin just once catch a meaty case she can see through to the end without a key witness, a judge or a suspect dying, or being raked over the coals by her own family for being about one-tenth as Machiavellian as any of them? Hello - the youngest great-grandchild sat at Sunday dinner and chirped, “The End Justifies The Means, Sometimes” and everyone looked at him all dewy-eyed. Even Father Jamie caved and admitted he’d done things to ensure an outcome, even if he had no lasting regrets for *having* done them. (And Nicky got a big ol’ patronizing yes-dear for even mentioning income inequality. Sigh.)

Bridget played Erin so straight-up exhausted, clinging to her one big case for justice to feel good about, wishing for just a bit of support from her family that I wanted to drop in at her office with a mocha and spa certificate. Girlfriend needs a holiday, or better yet, a solid case that actually makes a dent in New York’s problems. I think even the head of the Trial Division knows she’s near burnout and is being oddly nice.

Eddie was once again missing from the dinner table. In fact, from every scene. But I digress.

Tia Carrere can still throw a sneer. Interesting that in this episode, every group was headed up by a woman of colour (yes, even, um, the horrific crime ring.) The Justice, the Trial Court Supervisor, the Speaker of City Hall, all black women...even the absent Acting Mayor is Latina. Only whiter-than-white group are the Reagans.

Whoopi - I mean, Regina - had a good point in saying that the law-abiding, pro-social, “smart people”, who would support increased street policing, have already moved out of the districts Frank wants to ramp up. He’s already won the support of the well-heeled, pro-social citizens - that’s why his polling numbers are so high. He hasn’t made any connections in troubled communities that see cops as killers and liars, and would still rather struggle along in deepening gangland zones with familiar faces than trust a cop. Frank’s saintly refusal to play to the press has lost him credibility among those who don’t listen to NPR or go to town hall meetings. I wonder how his refusal to play Regina’s game and take up her offer of getting him linked in will play out, especially if Regina runs for Mayor and wins. She did not look happy.

And then they literally played out “It’s Chinatown, Jake”, in...Chinatown. Welcome back, Wise-ass Danny. Baez and Abetemarco tag-team babysitting Danny was nicely done, even if they were just playing off the opportunity. I’ve missed Abetemarco. He’s a damn decent man, and smarter than he lets on. I hope he and Danny keep connecting. Danny could use a new friend, especially one who’ll tell him to his face he’s being a jackass.

I enjoyed Garrett and Miller’s Come-to-Brisket meeting in Miller’s office. Garrett has a light touch with the BS when necessary, though I think Miller was more confused that Garrett was clearly pasting him and not hiding it, than wondering if he was being honest.

And Jamie had like three lines, total, in between bites of salad.

So I’m going to go dwell in fanfic land now.

#Blue Bloods #Erin Reagan #Danny Reagan #Frank Reagan

7 notes · View notes

vsplusonline · 4 years

Text

Fines, snitch lines: Crackdown on coronavirus rule breakers could have consequences

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/fines-snitch-lines-crackdown-on-coronavirus-rule-breakers-could-have-consequences/

Fines, snitch lines: Crackdown on coronavirus rule breakers could have consequences

A teenager shooting hoops nets a fine. A man walking his dog gets dinged for where he’s standing. And a father rollerblading alone with his three sons has a run-in with a bylaw officer.

“Who are we hurting?” Oakville, Ont., father Todd Nelson remembers asking the bylaw officer who told him he couldn’t rollerblade with his sons in an empty parking lot on April 10.

“He said, ‘Oh, you’re not going to be like that, are you?’ And I said, ‘I’m just asking a question,’” Nelson told Global News. “And that was it. He said, ‘Give me your ID,’ and next thing you know, we got a ticket.”

READ MORE: Five people to listen to during coronavirus outbreak — and five to ignore

Scroll through the database tracking fines levied against Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and you’ll find a few distinctive, concerning-sounding scenarios.

Story continues below advertisement

There is the man who lied about having COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, after being caught allegedly stealing a yacht, the woman who supposedly coughed on a grocery store clerk after she refused to let her buy extra tissues and the person who licked their hands before touching items in a pharmacy.

But those are the outliers.

For the most part, the offences are mundane and the alleged perpetrators report being confused by the rules or feeling targeted by police and bylaw officers. Sometimes, they just feel trapped without any legally safe means to escape tiny, overcrowded apartments so they can stretch their legs in the sun — with six feet of space between them and others.

The financial hit for Nelson? $880.

Or, as Michael Bryant, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), puts it: “A month of groceries for a family of four.”

2:15 Oakville family faces big fine after rollerblading amid emergency order

Oakville family faces big fine after rollerblading amid emergency order

These are fines that some people “literally cannot afford,” Bryant says.

“Sometimes, honest mistakes are made,” he says. “Normally, ignorance of the law is no defence, but in this case, we’re better off having police and bylaw officers educating the public, warning them and only getting (fines) as a last resort.”

Story continues below advertisement

An Ipsos poll, released on behalf of Global News, shows 85 per cent of Canadians support stricter physical-distancing laws and high fines. Yet, the rate at which Canadians are racking up fines and charges has experts worried that COVID-19 enforcement will divide communities, result in fewer people abiding by rules that reduce the rate of infection and further disenfranchise people already living on the margins of our society.

“It’s a public health crisis, it’s not a public order crisis,” Bryant says.

“Stop wielding power in order to crack down on people’s behaviour.”

Tweet This

The CCLA recently published an open letter with more than 150 other organizations calling for oversight of governments handling of the pandemic. At issue, Bryant says, is finding a way to balance public health needs with individuals’ rights and freedoms.

“Too often, in times of crisis, human rights are dismissed by governments as being irrelevant and unnecessary at best, or unhelpful barriers to an effective response at worst,” reads the open letter.

“It is, therefore, a vital time to ensure robust human rights oversight: to encourage strong human rights measures are adopted by governments, and to guard against intentional or unintended human rights violations.”

***

Staying home is a luxury not everyone can afford, says Alex Luscombe, a PhD student in criminology at the University of Toronto and co-creator of Policing the Pandemic, a mapping project launched in early April to track the ways in which COVID-19 orders are being enforced across the country.

Story continues below advertisement

First, not everyone has a home. Second, isolating in a spacious house with multiple bedrooms — multiple floors, even — and a big, fenced-in backyard is quite different than isolating in a one-bedroom apartment crowded with family members in a city where public parks have been declared off limits.

READ MORE: 3 in 10 Canadians couldn’t pay bills if they lost job due to coronavirus, per Ipsos survey

If you’re fortunate enough to belong to the first camp, you can get fresh air and sun without risking being a little too close to another person. In the second scenario, you can’t — and doing something as innocuous-seeming as walking through the park with your daughter or standing in the wrong spot with your dog could land you a hefty fine.

[ Sign up for our Health IQ newsletter for the latest coronavirus updates ]

“Ticketing and charging people to try to deter people from breaking physical-distancing rules (isn’t) going to work,” says Luscombe.

“Once you start charging people and once you start giving out tickets, the reality is that it’s not going to impact everyone equally.”

Tweet This

Luscombe’s Policing the Pandemic co-creator, a fellow Alex, notes that there is at least one First Nation in Quebec where they’ve tracked people receiving repeat tickets for gatherings of more than five people.

Three or more tickets can mean a stint behind bars, says Alex McClelland, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ottawa’s criminology department.

Story continues below advertisement

“That these tickets could lead to jail is completely shocking,” says McClelland, especially at a time when people across North America are trying to release people from prison to minimize COVID-19 risks.

“The outcome of policing COVID-19 using a public health approach to put people in jail is counter to what everyone’s trying to do.”

***

In the same way that not everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to practising physical distancing, Michael Spratt says not all public health order violations are created equally.

Spratt, a criminal lawyer and partner at Abergel Goldstein & Partners in Ottawa, divvies the offences up into a few categories.

The first is the “honest mistake,” which he says would include the immigrant father who doesn’t speak English well enough to understand the signs banning use of the playground.

“That is someone who should be warned and educated,” Spratt says, but instead, he got fined.

1:56 Coronavirus: Chin-ups at Toronto park lands man $880 fine

Coronavirus: Chin-ups at Toronto park lands man $880 fine

Then there is the “inadvertent” category, he says, which includes two friends sitting six feet apart on a park bench, consoling each other from a distance after losing their jobs.

“They were charged despite the fact that they were trying to socially distance,” Spratt says.

Story continues below advertisement

The third category is the basketball-playing kids, he says, the kind who get caught playing basketball in groups bigger than five, get warned and disperse, only to come back and keep playing.

“This is more flagrant… they clearly understand that they’re not supposed to be doing what they’re doing, but their intent isn’t one of malice,” Spratt says.

So while technically it’s an offence, he’d encourage caution before hitting them with a fine, as police in Peterborough, Ont., did at the end of March and bylaw officers in Kitchener, Ont., did earlier this month.

“Charges aren’t going to deter others in this case, and it risks disenfranchising the public buy-in when they see this type of enforcement,” Spratt says.

READ MORE: Spot a COVIDIOT? Here’s how to report coronavirus rule-breakers

Still, he notes, “all of those cases stand in contrast to cases where individuals are taking these actions with malice, with full recognition of the danger.” Think the person who licked their hands before touching items in a pharmacy.

It’s a tricky situation, says Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, an assistant professor in the University of Toronto’s sociology department.

“The difficult thing is how do we have people do what we want them to do without criminalizing them?”

Tweet This

Owusu-Bempah thinks we’d have more success if we focus on community-building and positivity.

Story continues below advertisement

“Emulating and reinforcing positive behaviours may have a greater effect than the potential deterrence of a punishment,” he says. Think signs telling people “we’re all in this together” or telling you to “stay safe and stay distant,” or public officials leading by example.

But a sense that we’re all in this together is undermined by so-called “snitch lines” that cities across Canada have set up for people to report failures to physically distance, says Spratt.

1:50 Dr. Bonnie Henry on the importance of accessing busy urban parks and beaches during the pandemic for mental health

Dr. Bonnie Henry on the importance of accessing busy urban parks and beaches during the pandemic for mental health

“The only way that we can maintain adherence and public buy-in to rules that are very oppressive and go against an open democracy’s instincts with respect to the scope and application of civil liberties is to make sure that we are united as a nation, as a province and, more importantly, as neighbourhood communities,” he says.

“The lines risk doing more damage than they do good and they risk destroying the goodwill and the community cohesion that we really need to not only help us comply with the rules but to help us survive as communities so that we can make it through a very tough and destructive time.”

***

Under normal circumstances, being ignorant of the law is not a defence.

But these are extraordinary circumstances, Bryant says, in which we are creating new rules that differ from province to province and even between cities within the same province.

Story continues below advertisement

“We’re better off having police and bylaw officers educating the public, warning them and only fining them as a last-resort measure,” he says. “Instead, it’s the other way around.”

READ MORE: Trudeau says ‘the front line is everywhere,’ but should we compare coronavirus to war?

So far, there have been hundreds of fines doled out in Quebec and Ontario, with fewer fines and charges reported in other provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

As those numbers go up, accountability is incredibly important, Luscombe and McClelland agree. It is, after all, a driving force behind the launch of Policing the Pandemic.

“We hope that we can bring to light patterns of police intervention, to help understand who is being targeted, what justifications are being used by police and how marginalized people are being impacted,” the duo wrote in the white paper accompanying the launch of their database.

That’s important, Bryant says, because the CCLA has received reports of people being stopped and carded in Ontario, where the emergency order has made it an offence to not provide identification if asked for it.

“It’s always the case that if a police officer charges you, they can ask for your ID, but this is pre-arrest,” he says. “That’s carding.”

2:03 Police, politicians warn against coronavirus-related racism

Police, politicians warn against coronavirus-related racism

The degree to which city bylaw officers and police organizations are willing to divulge specifics about how they’re enforcing the pandemic varies greatly.

Story continues below advertisement

While Toronto police differentiate between tickets, summons, cautions and COVID-19-related parking tickets, other forces like the Quebec provincial police simply post a number on Twitter once a week.

That leaves it to the two Alexs to flip through media articles published after some Quebec ticket receivers — often frustrated and confused — decide to share their experience publicly.

It’s only in the cases where the ticket receiver divulges their race or gender or specifics of their living situation to reporters or organizations like the CCLA that we learn who’s receiving tickets.

That’s a problem, Bryant says.

“All the worst harms that come with abuse of power always disproportionately impact racialized minorities, disabled people and homeless people.”

Tweet This

***

As of Thursday, April 23, Lethbridge Police Service in Alberta had handed out exactly zero fines for violating public health orders. They hope to keep it that way, says Insp. Jason Walper.

“The whole point is to try to alleviate the pressures on our medical facilities and public health,” Walper says. “If we can do that through education and by gaining voluntary compliance when we do come across violations, we’re more than happy to do that.”

While in select cases a ticket might serve as a deterrent, he says, the force believes it’ll have the most success through conversations, be it reminders of the importance and value of physical distancing or clarifications of the rules.

Story continues below advertisement

2:04 COVID-19: Lethbridge police say ‘no tickets yet,’ opt for warnings

COVID-19: Lethbridge police say ‘no tickets yet,’ opt for warnings

Living through a pandemic is hard, Walper acknowledges. Alberta’s jobless rate is one of the highest in Canada, and people are increasingly facing a financial crunch.

“We live in our community,” he says, so the cops are familiar with the struggles. “We’re not here to make this worse for people.”

That’s Lethbridge Police Service: one force in one city in one province.

With so many variables at play, it’s worth taking a breath before you call the cops on your neighbour for doing something that might not seem 100 per cent compliant with physical distancing, says Owusu-Bempah.

“One of the things to consider is, what are the potential consequences for the individual you’re calling the police on,” he says. “The intention may simply be to have (the cops) disperse people, but of course, the consequences could be much more great.”

— With files from the Canadian Press

This is one of several stories looking at how police are enforcing public health orders across Canada. If you or someone you know has been impacted and would like to share your story, please reach out to [email protected] or [email protected].

READ MORE: ‘A sinking feeling’ — Canadian experts on when coronavirus first felt like a serious risk

View link »

Story continues below advertisement

JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

REPORT AN ERROR

Source link

#Health

0 notes

thisdaynews · 5 years

Text

Everything you need to know about the UK Supreme Court ruling

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling/

Everything you need to know about the UK Supreme Court ruling

LONDON — Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was ruled unlawful Tuesday and MPs will now hurry back to Westminster to take their seats in the House of Commons.

Just hours after Britain’s top judges gave the prime minister a serious telling-off, Speaker John Bercow was back, declaring business would resume the following day.

But, as is so often the case with Brexit, the politics is ablaze yet the steps toward an EU exit remain largely unchanged.

Here’s your guide to what Tuesday’s ruling means and what happens next.

What has the Supreme Court decided?

Eleven judges decided unanimously that Johnson acted illegally when he advised Queen Elizabeth II to suspend (or prorogue) parliament. In essentially misleading the queen, the prime minister had by extension trampled on the sovereignty of parliament at a crucial time in the Brexit process.

“The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification,” said Brenda Hale, the court’s president, as she read out the judgement.

Johnson’s advice was “unlawful, void and of no effect,” she said, meaning that “when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords [to enact the suspension] it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper.”

In the eyes of the law, this suspension never happened, meaning the speakers of the Commons and Lords are now free to recall both houses of parliament, Hale said.

However, the judges chose not to rule on Johnson’s motivation for suspending parliament, something that could have been even more politically contentious.

What impact will the decision have on Brexit?

As things stand, the U.K. is still due to leave the European Union on October 31, and Johnson reiterated again on Tuesday that he wants to “get on and deliver [Brexit]” regardless of the Supreme Court ruling.

But he still must contend with a new law — known as the Benn Act — which forces the prime minister to ask the European leaders to extend negotiations if no deal has been agreed by next month’s European Council meeting on October 17 and 18.

With the threat of suspension looming, MPs acted quickly in early September and passed this law in order to stop Johnson taking the U.K. out of the EU without a deal.

“[The court ruling] doesn’t make a big impact on the outcome of Brexit in the long run,” Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform think tank, said. “What matters most is whether Boris can get a deal with the EU27.”

Does the ruling make a no-deal Brexit less likely?

Probably. Having lost in the country’s highest court, the Cabinet are likely to be more cautious about allowing the prime minister to try any more unusual maneuvers to force Brexit through.

The Democratic Unionist Party, which propped up Johnson’s government in Westminster, could also apply pressure not to further test the law. Arlene Foster, the party’s leader, tweeted on Tuesday that the Supreme Court had “to be respected.”

Grant said he thought the chance of the U.K. leaving on October 31 had gone from “low to minimal; infinitesimally low.”

“The more radical, Maoist voices in the government were saying let’s find a loophole. Having been chided by the Supreme Court once for acting illegally, it would be very difficult for them to do that twice,” he said.

Assuming Johnson doesn’t do a deal with Brussels, the most likely next step for the government is to ask the EU27 for an extension and then push for an election.

Does this mean Johnson will have to resign?

Johnson on Tuesday rejected the idea that he could resign over the defeat, and was backed up by Trump. Asked if the British prime minister might step down, Trump said: “I’ll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere.” Johnson added: “No, no, no.”

British prime ministers do not usually resign unless they lose the confidence of the public (via an election or referendum), of their Cabinet, or of parliament. Johnson doesn’t appear to have lost the first two and arguably never enjoyed the confidence of parliament, having lost every vote in the House of Commons. Whereas once losing a key vote would have spelled the end of a premiership, new rules mandating when U.K. elections must be held have made it possible for prime ministers to cling on.

A snap YouGov poll in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling suggests the public largely agrees with the judgment that prorogation was unlawful. But Johnson has been riding high in the usual polling horserace in recent weeks and the public — or at least the section he claims to speak for — generally seems to support his approach to Brexit.

He held a “businesslike” Cabinet call in the wake of the judgment, a Downing Street official said, and although Justice Secretary Robert Buckland raised concerns about a hostile briefing against the judges, nobody seems on the verge of resignation.

Johnson himself feels no need to resign because he refutes the verdict, a U.K. government official said. “The prime minister has said he disagrees with the ruling but of course, as always, we abide by it, he now has a job to do.”

Will anyone take the blame?

Downing Street does not expect ministers or advisers to lose their jobs over the prorogation blunder.

There had been some speculation that Attorney General Geoffrey Cox could be in line for the chop after Sky News obtained a memo detailing his legal advice that prorogation was lawful. “The attorney general said that his advice on the question of the law is that this was lawful and within the constitution,” the document reads. “Any accusations of unlawfulness or constitutional outrage were motivated by political considerations.”

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, meanwhile, said top Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings “must go” for recommending what he branded the “worst political decision ever.” Other reporters said there was disquiet about Cummings among Tory ranks in the wake of the verdict, while questions were also raised over the position of legislative adviser Nikki da Costa.

A U.K. government official said the prime minister had confidence in Cox and Cummings. He was not asked specifically about da Costa but rejected suggestions there would be job losses.

What do MPs do now?

While the ruling is a blow to the prime minister, it also puts pressure on MPs to demonstrate that parliament has a valuable role scrutinizing Brexit. Why make a big fuss about suspending parliament if MPs don’t have anything meaningful to say?

The ruling caught most of British politics by surprise and there is no clear cross-party strategy yet, according to a number of figures involved in discussions. “The outcome of the ruling had not been expected by many in Westminster,” one opposition strategist said.

The coalition of cross-party MPs that pushed the Benn Act only came together when facing a looming deadline because Johnson was about to suspend parliament, which focused the disparate group on their shared aim of preventing a no-deal Brexit.

Some Tories opposed to no deal are mulling further legislation to ensure the prime minister can’t circumnavigate the new law, strategists working with some of them said.

While some think a move could come as early as tomorrow, others do not think MPs will act immediately.

Another strategist familiar with discussions said MPs from across the political divide would use the extra parliamentary time to probe the government for more information on Brexit preparations, for example more detail about planning for a no-deal exit, insight into the government’s legal advice or details of negotiations with Brussels.

The ancient parliamentary device of a “humble address” to require the government to publish such information would likely be used in the coming weeks, the strategist said, although some are more cautious about forcing legal advice because of the precedent it sets.

Will there be a general election?

It is still just about possible to have a pre-Brexit election if two thirds of MPs vote for one when parliament returns Wednesday, according to the Institute for Government’s Joe Marshall. But it is very unlikely.

For opposition leaders, the calculation on an election hasn’t changed. They still want to be sure Johnson cannot pull the U.K. out of the EU without a deal before they will back a snap vote, which makes an election very unlikely before November. Opposition parties held discussions about their next steps on Tuesday following the Supreme Court ruling.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told his party on Tuesday that the only way out of the Brexit crisis was a general election, but that no-deal exit must be ruled out first. A spokesman said Corbyn would go to parliament on Wednesday and “use whatever mechanisms there are to try and hold the prime minister to account and achieve the goals Jeremy set out.”

Scottish National Party Leader Nicola Sturgeon said MPs should “come together” to force Johnson out of office through a vote of confidence if he does not do the “decent and honorable thing” by quitting. But an SNP official said the party would make sure no deal had been ruled out “for good — no games or smoke and mirrors,” and then move against the prime minister.

Can the U.K.’s unwritten constitution survive Brexit?

“The wider effect of the [Supreme Court] judgment will be that few, if any, politically controversial decisions taken by minsters will be out of bounds for the courts,” said Adam Wagner, a human rights lawyer and expert on constitutional law.

He said Tuesday’s ruling made a written constitution “more likely” in the long term.

“Many will be uneasy with the courts taking an increasingly muscular role over hybrid political and legal issues which just a decade ago they may have refused to get involved,” he said.

“Ultimately, the court says it is revealing constitutional principles but some will argue the justices are creating them. A written constitution could resolve that tension, though experience from other jurisdictions suggest it would not solve it,” he added.

#Court #Foreign #Politics #ruling

0 notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years

Text

Trump Weighs New Stance on Guns Amid Changing Politics https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/us/politics/gun-background-checks.html

I won't hold my breath!!!

Trump Weighs New Stance on Guns Amid Changing Politics

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin |

Published Aug. 8, 2019 | New York Times | Posted August 8, 2019 9:12 PM

WASHINGTON — In the wake of two mass shootings, the divisive politics of gun control appeared to be in flux on Thursday as President Trump explored whether to back expanded background checks on gun purchasers and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, signaled that he would at least be open to considering the idea.

It is not clear that either the president or Mr. McConnell will embrace such legislation, which both of them have opposed in the past and which would have to overcome opposition from the National Rifle Association and other powerful conservative constituencies.

But their willingness to weigh its political appeal and feasibility — or to be seen doing so — suggested that Republicans are feeling pressure to take some substantive action in the wake of mass shootings last weekend in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, that killed 31 people. Mr. McConnell said that a measure expanding background checks to all gun purchasers would be “front and center” when the Senate comes back into session next month.

“There is a lot of support for that,” he said in an interview with a Kentucky radio host, adding that the discussion would also encompass so-called red flag legislation that would make it easier to seize firearms from people deemed dangerous. Such legislation had already been gathering support from Republicans.

While stopping short of backing a background check measure or committing to bring it to a vote, Mr. McConnell said, “I think the urgency of this is not lost on any of us, because we’ve seen too many of these horrendous acts.”

If Mr. Trump were to back such legislation and Mr. McConnell proved willing to bring it up in the Senate, it would mark a fundamental change in the gun control debate. After previous mass shootings, similar discussion about Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans dropping their opposition to expanded background checks went nowhere.

Mr. McConnell’s comments came as Mr. Trump has been reaching out to a wide array of allies and opponents — including, on Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader — to gauge the possibilities of pushing through a background check bill. The president spoke with Mr. McConnell on Thursday morning and has held a series of discussions with Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, who has been pushing a bipartisan background check bill.

He has directed White House aides to determine what he might be able to do through executive action if Congress does not act. And he has reached out to Wayne LaPierre, the embattled head of the N.R.A., seeking to test whether the organization’s formidable clout in blocking gun control legislation is ebbing.

“I certainly think it’s fair to say the president is very interested; the president would like to do something in the background check space,” Mr. Toomey said, though he added that Mr. Trump has not committed to supporting his bill, which fell to a filibuster in 2013.

In a statement, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer said they had told the president that Mr. McConnell should take up a background check bill passed by the House this year.

“The president gave us his assurances that he would review the bipartisan House-passed legislation and understood our interest in moving as quickly as possible to help save lives,” they said.

Should Mr. Trump throw his weight behind a background check bill — or even an executive order, which would surely face legal challenges — it would immediately change the gun control calculus for skittish Republicans, giving at least some cover to support the concept. And it would be a huge turnabout for the president; in February, he threatened to veto the House bill.

In private conversations, Mr. Trump has offered different ideas for what action on gun safety might look like.

With some advisers, he has said he thinks he can get something done through executive action. With others, he has said he prefers legislation. With still others, he has said he would like a political concession in exchange for doing so. And he has insisted that he would be able to convince his most ardent supporters who favor gun rights that the moment for a change has arrived.

Mr. McConnell told the radio host, Terry Meiners of WHAS in Louisville, that he is determined to see bipartisan legislation pass, adding, “what I want to see here is an outcome, not a bunch of partisan back and forth.” He also said he expected discussion of an assault weapons ban, which is favored by Democrats but highly unlikely to pass in a Republican-controlled Senate.

He said he had spoken to Mr. Trump, and the president was “very much open to this discussion.”

Still, Democrats caution that they have been down this road with Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell before, and it is not clear how sustained Mr. Trump’s attention to the issue will be or how much political capital he will spend to follow through.

After the massacre of 58 people at a Las Vegas concert in 2017 and the killing of 17 students in Parkland, Fla., the following year, Mr. Trump made good on a pledge to impose a ban on bump stocks, the attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire in sustained, rapid bursts. But he also expressed support for taking guns away from dangerous or mentally ill people — even without court orders — only to back away after gun-rights advocates fiercely objected.

Mr. Trump has also mused in the past about more aggressive moves like tightening loopholes in the existing background check law but then failed to take action — including last year, after the Parkland shooting. And Mr. Trump earlier had reversed an Obama-era executive action that used Social Security records to help flag people with disqualifying mental health issues.

Mr. McConnell’s commitment is also unclear. He said he did not intend to bring the Senate back into session from its August recess, as Ms. Pelosi asked again on Thursday that he do.

In a statement issued just after Mr. McConnell spoke, Mr. LaPierre said the N.R.A. “opposes any legislation that unfairly infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Mr. LaPierre did not specifically say whether that included red flag laws and background checks. But the group has opposed such measures in the past, and Mr. LaPierre said that “many proposals are nothing more than ‘soundbite solutions’ — which fail to address the root of the problem, confront criminal behavior, or make our communities safer.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump has made at least some appeals to Mr. LaPierre. On Tuesday, the president called the N.R.A. leader to describe his thinking, according to two people familiar with the call. The call was first reported by The Washington Post.

Mr. Trump talked up the idea of a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden and insisted that he believed it would be successful, according to those briefed on the call. Mr. LaPierre made clear that his members — many of whom back Mr. Trump — would not favor such a move.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a close ally of the president, said Mr. Trump is “open-minded” about pursuing background check legislation, but he sounded more optimistic about the possibility of a red flag law.

Part of the challenge for lawmakers seeking action is that the White House is divided — as is often the case. The hard-liners and Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is close to pro-gun activists, are uneasy about angering the president’s heavily white and rural base by pursuing gun control measures ahead of 2020.

But others, particularly Mr. Trump’s eldest daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka Trump, are aggressively lobbying the president to take action, according to Republican officials who have been in touch with her.

A close adviser to Mr. McConnell, Scott Jennings, said Thursday that he spoke with the leader earlier this week and encouraged him to pursue a background check bill.

“I think we’ve reached a tipping point,” said Mr. Jennings, who is based in Kentucky and has advised Mr. McConnell for years. “The polling clearly supports that notion, and as long as the president is going to be for something, I think there will be momentum for it within the party.”

Regardless, senators of both parties are deeply skeptical that Mr. McConnell will bring any sort of gun control measure to the floor unless the president demands it.

“There’s no way Republicans are voting for a background check bill unless Trump comes out in favor of it for more than a couple of hours,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, recalling that Mr. Trump also voiced support for strengthened background checks following the massacre in Parkland, Fla. “I’ve been to this rodeo before.”

On Thursday, more than 200 mayors, including the mayors of Dayton and El Paso, signed a letter demanding that Mr. McConnell bring the Senate back from its August recess to consider the House-passed legislation.

“There’s no sense that the gun that the shooter used in Dayton — it was completely legal, he broke no laws to get it here,” said Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton. “And so here we sit, nine dead and 27 injured in Dayton. All we’re asking is for Congress to do its job.”

0 notes