Conservatives and Liberals

[Farfromgeneva]

Census opened up from 1950 for soem if you older timers to revisit the past

https://1950census.archives.gov/

[Peter Brown]

Says it all. For those who don’t understand, a good time to reflect.

947C1FA3-72EC-48F6-87C8-2C31AD1A2187.jpeg (90.83 KiB) Viewed 683 times

[Farfromgeneva]

Moronic

[Seacoaster(1)]

Is this all as stupid and pointless as it sounds?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-schools/

"Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) continued to stoke partisan rancor this week with a flurry of unusual vetoes and bill amendments that political opponents and analysts saw as punishing Democrats and agitating culture-war talking points.

Youngkin vetoed 25 bills that had bipartisan support in the General Assembly, throwing sharp elbows particularly at lawmakers who represent blue areas of Northern Virginia. For instance, he vetoed nine of the 10 bills sponsored by Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) while signing identical House bills in six of those cases.

Typically a governor signs both versions, allowing both sponsors bragging rights for getting a bill passed into law. Longtime state legislators said they could not think of a case in which a governor signed one bill and vetoed its companion. “This is my 19th year, and I’ve never seen it before,” said Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax).

All of Youngkin’s vetoes targeted bills sponsored by Democrats, and four of them were against bills filed by Arlington Del. Patrick A. Hope (D), including one to lift tobacco use penalties on health insurance premiums that was widely supported in both chambers.

“Some of the vetoes involve very uncontroversial measures … which is not the norm,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington. “This is a further example of how partisan politics has become in Virginia.”

Youngkin also drew strong reactions for proposing an amendment to a routine school board bill so that Loudoun County would have to hold elections for its entire school board this fall, shortening some members’ terms. That move — which would have to be approved by the General Assembly — took aim at a county where conservative parental grievance against the school board provided enormous energy for Youngkin’s election last year.

Youngkin took office in January promising to be a unifying governor, working with a divided legislature where the House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. But since then, as his national political profile has risen, Youngkin has repeatedly riled political divisions, such as seeking to eliminate language about “racial equity” from school programs.

By vetoing 25 bills and amending 114 in his first legislative session, Youngkin got off to a more aggressive start than recent governors.

Democrat Ralph Northam vetoed 20 bills and amended 60 in 2018, Democrat Terry McAuliffe vetoed 10 and amended 57, and Republican Robert F. McDonnell vetoed none and amended 123, according to figures provided by Youngkin’s office.

Youngkin’s active veto pen surprised longtime Richmond political analyst Bob Holsworth because the governor’s own party controls the House of Delegates.

“That’s what makes it look to be, in some instances, more of a political breast-for-tat than a philosophical objection,” Holsworth said.

Youngkin spokeswoman Macaulay Porter did not respond to messages asking if Youngkin was targeting Ebbin or other Democrats for partisan reasons. Asked why he would break with precedent by signing one bill but vetoing its companion, she declined to comment beyond the veto descriptions.

Asked if House Republicans felt rebuked for passing bills that the governor disliked, a spokesman for Speaker Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) said via text message: “The Governor’s veto messages speak for themselves.”

Youngkin’s moves come at a politically fraught moment, with members of the General Assembly still trying to reach agreement on a state budget — deadlocked over tax cuts proposed by Youngkin. Lawmakers couldn’t finish the budget by the time their regular legislative session ended March 12, so Youngkin called them back into a special session April 4.

Lawmakers from both parties had not yet finished negotiations, so the legislature went into recess and will return to Richmond on April 27 to take up Youngkin’s proposed amendments and vetoes — and possibly to finish work on the budget.

Another item they’ll have to address is marijuana legalization. Youngkin suggested several amendments to a related bill, including creating misdemeanor penalties for possessing more than two ounces of marijuana.

Under legalization measures adopted last year, adults are permitted to possess one ounce or less, but possessing a pound or more is a felony. Any amount in between was subject to a civil fine of $25. Youngkin also proposed a timetable and mechanisms for setting up enforcement under the state attorney general and the new Cannabis Control Authority.

Youngkin signaled philosophical issues with a few of his vetoes. He killed four bills that recommended studies, saying he is a governor of “action,” not rumination.

One of those was sponsored by Del. Luke E. Torian (D-Prince William) and would have required the state to conduct a study every five years to ensure agencies were using diverse small-business suppliers. The original bill passed the House 77 to 23 and the Senate 36 to 3.

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to highlight the failings of previous administrations,” Youngkin wrote in his veto message. “The Commonwealth is under new management and the time for action is now.”

Youngkin’s vetoes of nine bills sponsored by Ebbin often carried far less explanation.

All of Ebbin’s vetoed bills passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins; six won unanimous support in both chambers. Those included a measure to bolster consumer data protection and another to require real estate agents to disclose if they have an ownership interest in the transaction.

Another, which passed the Senate 40-0 and the House 81-16, would repeal an antiquated 1920s law requiring that adult children financially support their elderly parents, punishable by up to a year in jail.

In six cases, Youngkin said he vetoed the bill because he had signed a House version that did the same thing. But governors routinely sign both versions of a measure — including Youngkin, who did so several times among the 700 bills he approved or amended.

“I’m stunned at the governor’s unexplainable decision to veto meaningful, non-controversial legislation,” Ebbin said. “It is the polar opposite of what he campaigned on and not in the best interests of Virginians.”

Ebbin said Youngkin’s actions reveal the governor to be a “bitter partisan.”

“I’ve worked with governors of both parties. I’ve never had a veto before,” said Ebbin, who vowed to work to override the vetoes.

The vetoes were widely seen as payback for Senate Democrats’ refusal to confirm a handful of Youngkin appointments, starting with their rejection of a Trump administration official for the governor’s Cabinet. Ebbin, as chairman of the Senate committee that handles appointments, has been at the center of those appointment battles.

In early February, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee rejected Andrew Wheeler, Youngkin’s pick for secretary of natural and historic resources. Virginia’s General Assembly rarely snubs a governor’s Cabinet nominee, but the Democrats strenuously objected to Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who led a rollback of Obama-era environmental regulations as President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency chief.

Democrats approved Youngkin’s 15 other Cabinet picks. After the regular General Assembly session ended in March, Youngkin made Wheeler a senior adviser — a position that does not require sign-off from the legislature.

The political tussles have considerable upside for Youngkin, said Farnsworth. “This portfolio of vetoes is going to have the impact of increasing the governor’s national profile,” he said, adding that Youngkin’s “combative approach to the school board in Loudoun County will likely generate lots of interest on the part of Fox News.”

Del. David A. Reid (D-Loudoun), who sponsored the Loudoun school board bill, accused Youngkin of trying to undermine democracy by rescheduling elections.

“This is another attempt by some Republicans to subvert our democracy and hold it hostage to a right-wing minority,” Reid said in a text message to The Washington Post. “The members of the Loudoun County School Board were elected to serve 4-year terms and they should be allowed to serve the full duration of their terms — that’s why we have scheduled elections.”

Board member Andrew Hoyler (Broad Run) posted on his Facebook page Tuesday that while his own seat was already slated to come up for election this fall, Youngkin’s move to force all members to run again was unfair to those who had won four-year terms in 2019.

“We have legal procedures in place to remove elected officials for a number of reasons,” Hoyler wrote on Facebook. “These procedures are done through the judicial system, not the executive and legislative branches, and I do not support any attempt to circumnavigate the processes that are already present.”

Ian Serotkin, another school board member, said in a written statement that “this is a brazen effort to overturn the will of the people, who democratically elected the School Board to a four year term in 2019. The continued targeting and harassment of Loudoun County by the Governor to score political points does nothing to help our students — that continues to be my sole focus. ”

Several other members of the board and a spokesman for the Loudoun school system did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, some parent activists in the county were celebrating. Ian Prior, a former Trump administration official who founded the educational advocacy group Fight for Schools, shared a jubilant statement Tuesday lauding Youngkin’s amendment.

“For the past two years, the Loudoun County School Board has run our schools as if it had divine right,” Prior said in the statement. “Allowing school board elections THIS year will give everyone the opportunity to choose what kind of school board they want. … If that happens, rest assured, we will be ready.”

[cradleandshoot]

Is this all as stupid and pointless as it sounds?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... n-schools/

"Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) continued to stoke partisan rancor this week with a flurry of unusual vetoes and bill amendments that political opponents and analysts saw as punishing Democrats and agitating culture-war talking points.

Youngkin vetoed 25 bills that had bipartisan support in the General Assembly, throwing sharp elbows particularly at lawmakers who represent blue areas of Northern Virginia. For instance, he vetoed nine of the 10 bills sponsored by Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) while signing identical House bills in six of those cases.

Typically a governor signs both versions, allowing both sponsors bragging rights for getting a bill passed into law. Longtime state legislators said they could not think of a case in which a governor signed one bill and vetoed its companion. “This is my 19th year, and I’ve never seen it before,” said Del. Mark D. Sickles (D-Fairfax).

All of Youngkin’s vetoes targeted bills sponsored by Democrats, and four of them were against bills filed by Arlington Del. Patrick A. Hope (D), including one to lift tobacco use penalties on health insurance premiums that was widely supported in both chambers.

“Some of the vetoes involve very uncontroversial measures … which is not the norm,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington. “This is a further example of how partisan politics has become in Virginia.”

Youngkin also drew strong reactions for proposing an amendment to a routine school board bill so that Loudoun County would have to hold elections for its entire school board this fall, shortening some members’ terms. That move — which would have to be approved by the General Assembly — took aim at a county where conservative parental grievance against the school board provided enormous energy for Youngkin’s election last year.

Youngkin took office in January promising to be a unifying governor, working with a divided legislature where the House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. But since then, as his national political profile has risen, Youngkin has repeatedly riled political divisions, such as seeking to eliminate language about “racial equity” from school programs.

By vetoing 25 bills and amending 114 in his first legislative session, Youngkin got off to a more aggressive start than recent governors.

Democrat Ralph Northam vetoed 20 bills and amended 60 in 2018, Democrat Terry McAuliffe vetoed 10 and amended 57, and Republican Robert F. McDonnell vetoed none and amended 123, according to figures provided by Youngkin’s office.

Youngkin’s active veto pen surprised longtime Richmond political analyst Bob Holsworth because the governor’s own party controls the House of Delegates.

“That’s what makes it look to be, in some instances, more of a political breast-for-tat than a philosophical objection,” Holsworth said.

Youngkin spokeswoman Macaulay Porter did not respond to messages asking if Youngkin was targeting Ebbin or other Democrats for partisan reasons. Asked why he would break with precedent by signing one bill but vetoing its companion, she declined to comment beyond the veto descriptions.

Asked if House Republicans felt rebuked for passing bills that the governor disliked, a spokesman for Speaker Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) said via text message: “The Governor’s veto messages speak for themselves.”

Youngkin’s moves come at a politically fraught moment, with members of the General Assembly still trying to reach agreement on a state budget — deadlocked over tax cuts proposed by Youngkin. Lawmakers couldn’t finish the budget by the time their regular legislative session ended March 12, so Youngkin called them back into a special session April 4.

Lawmakers from both parties had not yet finished negotiations, so the legislature went into recess and will return to Richmond on April 27 to take up Youngkin’s proposed amendments and vetoes — and possibly to finish work on the budget.

Another item they’ll have to address is marijuana legalization. Youngkin suggested several amendments to a related bill, including creating misdemeanor penalties for possessing more than two ounces of marijuana.

Under legalization measures adopted last year, adults are permitted to possess one ounce or less, but possessing a pound or more is a felony. Any amount in between was subject to a civil fine of $25. Youngkin also proposed a timetable and mechanisms for setting up enforcement under the state attorney general and the new Cannabis Control Authority.

Youngkin signaled philosophical issues with a few of his vetoes. He killed four bills that recommended studies, saying he is a governor of “action,” not rumination.

One of those was sponsored by Del. Luke E. Torian (D-Prince William) and would have required the state to conduct a study every five years to ensure agencies were using diverse small-business suppliers. The original bill passed the House 77 to 23 and the Senate 36 to 3.

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to highlight the failings of previous administrations,” Youngkin wrote in his veto message. “The Commonwealth is under new management and the time for action is now.”

Youngkin’s vetoes of nine bills sponsored by Ebbin often carried far less explanation.

All of Ebbin’s vetoed bills passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins; six won unanimous support in both chambers. Those included a measure to bolster consumer data protection and another to require real estate agents to disclose if they have an ownership interest in the transaction.

Another, which passed the Senate 40-0 and the House 81-16, would repeal an antiquated 1920s law requiring that adult children financially support their elderly parents, punishable by up to a year in jail.

In six cases, Youngkin said he vetoed the bill because he had signed a House version that did the same thing. But governors routinely sign both versions of a measure — including Youngkin, who did so several times among the 700 bills he approved or amended.

“I’m stunned at the governor’s unexplainable decision to veto meaningful, non-controversial legislation,” Ebbin said. “It is the polar opposite of what he campaigned on and not in the best interests of Virginians.”

Ebbin said Youngkin’s actions reveal the governor to be a “bitter partisan.”

“I’ve worked with governors of both parties. I’ve never had a veto before,” said Ebbin, who vowed to work to override the vetoes.

The vetoes were widely seen as payback for Senate Democrats’ refusal to confirm a handful of Youngkin appointments, starting with their rejection of a Trump administration official for the governor’s Cabinet. Ebbin, as chairman of the Senate committee that handles appointments, has been at the center of those appointment battles.

In early February, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee rejected Andrew Wheeler, Youngkin’s pick for secretary of natural and historic resources. Virginia’s General Assembly rarely snubs a governor’s Cabinet nominee, but the Democrats strenuously objected to Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who led a rollback of Obama-era environmental regulations as President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency chief.

Democrats approved Youngkin’s 15 other Cabinet picks. After the regular General Assembly session ended in March, Youngkin made Wheeler a senior adviser — a position that does not require sign-off from the legislature.

The political tussles have considerable upside for Youngkin, said Farnsworth. “This portfolio of vetoes is going to have the impact of increasing the governor’s national profile,” he said, adding that Youngkin’s “combative approach to the school board in Loudoun County will likely generate lots of interest on the part of Fox News.”

Del. David A. Reid (D-Loudoun), who sponsored the Loudoun school board bill, accused Youngkin of trying to undermine democracy by rescheduling elections.

“This is another attempt by some Republicans to subvert our democracy and hold it hostage to a right-wing minority,” Reid said in a text message to The Washington Post. “The members of the Loudoun County School Board were elected to serve 4-year terms and they should be allowed to serve the full duration of their terms — that’s why we have scheduled elections.”

Board member Andrew Hoyler (Broad Run) posted on his Facebook page Tuesday that while his own seat was already slated to come up for election this fall, Youngkin’s move to force all members to run again was unfair to those who had won four-year terms in 2019.

“We have legal procedures in place to remove elected officials for a number of reasons,” Hoyler wrote on Facebook. “These procedures are done through the judicial system, not the executive and legislative branches, and I do not support any attempt to circumnavigate the processes that are already present.”

Ian Serotkin, another school board member, said in a written statement that “this is a brazen effort to overturn the will of the people, who democratically elected the School Board to a four year term in 2019. The continued targeting and harassment of Loudoun County by the Governor to score political points does nothing to help our students — that continues to be my sole focus. ”

Several other members of the board and a spokesman for the Loudoun school system did not respond to requests for comment.

Meanwhile, some parent activists in the county were celebrating. Ian Prior, a former Trump administration official who founded the educational advocacy group Fight for Schools, shared a jubilant statement Tuesday lauding Youngkin’s amendment.

“For the past two years, the Loudoun County School Board has run our schools as if it had divine right,” Prior said in the statement. “Allowing school board elections THIS year will give everyone the opportunity to choose what kind of school board they want. … If that happens, rest assured, we will be ready.”

So the good folks of Virginia have been introduced to the same type of governance the residents of NYS endured under king andy. It sucks when your governor becomes a tyrant and a dictator. Welcome to the party all you good citizens of Virginia. It won't get any better any time soon.

[Farfromgeneva]

He’s been gone for a good minute now. You know that right?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Tim Scott, who stayed quiet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... son-brown/

"Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court, has a well-earned place in history. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also deserves a footnote at the end of her story. The first African American senator to represent a southern state since 1881, Scott voted against Jackson’s elevation to the highest court in the land.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Explaining his opposition, Scott said, “Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy and positions on the defining issues of our time make her the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.”

That, despite overwhelming evidence that Jackson’s record as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit placed her well within the judicial mainstream. Scott also said he voted against Jackson for “leaving open the door on court packing” — an objection he did not raise when Justice Amy Coney Barrett avoided answering questions about expanding the court during her confirmation hearing.

Scott, however, will go down in history for what he didn’t say or do when the moment arose.

As the sole Black member in the Senate Republican caucus, Scott stood by as his GOP colleagues harangued, besmirched and badgered a well-qualified, widely respected Black woman with untruthful smears and bad faith attacks. Before Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Scott said he looked forward to “a respectful and thorough hearing process.” But when the bullying got started, Scott went missing.

As a follow up, on Monday I asked Scott’s press secretary, Caroline Anderegg whether the senator had any comments about Jackson’s treatment during the hearings. Anderegg stated Scott said all he was going to say about Jackson’s appointment, and with respect to the hearings, Scott doesn’t have “any comment on that.”

Jackson, to her credit, stood up to the mistreatment with dignity and a display of deference that her attackers did not deserve. She drew support from several Democrats, most notably Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) who decried the shocking insults directed her way. Moderate Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) was moved to blast Republicans for their treatment during the hearings, calling their behavior “disgraceful” and “embarrassing.”

Georgia’s Raphael G. Warnock, the first Black Democrat to be elected to the Senate from a former Confederate state, showed he appreciated the event’s significance.

“Yes, I’m a senator, I’m a pastor, beyond all of that I am a father of young Black girl,” Warnock said during the Senate confirmation debate. “I know how much it means for Judge Jackson to have navigated the double jeopardy of racism and sexism to now stand in the glory of this moment, in all of her excellence.”

And he wrote in a letter to his 5-year-old daughter, Chloé: “In our nation’s history, she is the first Supreme Court Justice who looks like you — with hair like yours.”

Jackson was disowned by someone who looks like her and who now claims victimhood for himself.

Referring to the other Republican senator from South Carolina, MSNBC Host Joy Reid tweeted that Scott let Lindsey O. Graham “& the sheriffs dog-walk him” when it came to police reform and is going along with Graham’s “barking-dog racism” on opposing Jackson.

Scott labeled the criticism “vile” and “offensive” for suggesting “that a Black man cannot think for himself. I have to follow somebody else. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” he said. “It reinforces the liberal elites’ approach to minorities who will not fall in line and do what they tell us to do.”

Raised in a poor, single-parent household in South Carolina, Scott has gained mightily through his Republican Party affiliations. A big star in his chosen world, he is often praised by former president Donald Trump, who has given Scott’s 2022 reelection bid “my complete and total endorsement.” And the pro-Scott super PAC Opportunity Matters Fund is flooded with Republican megadonor money.

How to explain Tim Scott?

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the New School in New York on Feb. 6, 1964, about the Civil Rights movement and how people react to calls to serve.

“Negroes are human, not superhuman” King said. “Like all people, they have differing personalities, diverse financial interests and varied aspirations. There are Negroes who will never fight for freedom. There are Negroes who seek profit for themselves alone from the struggle. There are even some Negroes who will go over to the other side.”

“These facts should distress no one,” King explained. “Every minority and every people has its share of opportunists, traitors, freeloaders and escapists. The hammer blows of discrimination, poverty and segregation must warp and corrupt some. No one can pretend that because a people may be oppressed, every individual member is virtuous and worthy.”

“Decency, honor and courage” King said, are the dominant characteristics to look for.

The historic struggle for progress, King told the audience, has always had “masses of decent people, along with their lost souls.”

And maybe therein lies the answer: Tim Scott, who profits from gains in his right-wing world; and, Tim Scott, lost soul running his God-given race.

Either way, his place in history is assured."

[Farfromgeneva]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

[Peter Brown]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more.

I edited your post to what you should have written, and left it at that.

[cradleandshoot]

He’s been gone for a good minute now. You know that right?

Yet he is still rallying his supporters to possibly run as an independent. My point was king Andy ran the state as if it was his own personal fiefdom, unless I'm wrong that is what the new governor of Virginia is attempting to do.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

[Farfromgeneva]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more.

I edited your post to what you should have written, and left it at that.

I don’t approve of that.

[Farfromgeneva]

He’s been gone for a good minute now. You know that right?

Yet he is still rallying his supporters to possibly run as an independent. My point was king Andy ran the state as if it was his own personal fiefdom, unless I'm wrong that is what the new governor of Virginia is attempting to do.

I suspect there are differences. Youngkin actually accomplished something in private sector. Cuomo is nothing more than the political class. I suspect Youngkin is used to making decisions too down to some degree and that may be driving some of this even if I don’t like it.

[Farfromgeneva]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

[Seacoaster(1)]

More madness from the "religious" Right? Just the most feckless group of numbheads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/us/p ... ticleShare

"In a bitterly divided Congress, it was a rare measure that had been expected to sail through without a fight.

A bill to name a federal courthouse in Tallahassee after Justice Joseph W. Hatchett, the first Black man to serve on the Florida Supreme Court — sponsored by the state’s two Republican senators and backed unanimously by its 27 House members — was set to pass the House last month and become law with broad bipartisan support.

But in a last-minute flurry, Republicans abruptly pulled their backing with no explanation and ultimately killed the measure, leaving its fate unclear, many of its champions livid and some of its newfound opponents professing ignorance about what had happened.

Asked what made him vote against a measure that he had co-sponsored, Representative Vern Buchanan, Republican of Florida, was brief and blunt: “I don’t know,” he said.

The real answer is as much an allegory about the state of House Republicans in 2022 as it is about a federal building in Florida. With little notice and nothing more than a 23-year-old news clipping, a right-wing, first-term congressman mounted an 11th-hour effort on the House floor to persuade his colleagues that Judge Hatchett, a trailblazing judge who broke barriers as the first Black State Supreme Court justice south of the Mason-Dixon line, was undeserving of being honored.

The objector was Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Shortly before the House vote, he began circulating an Associated Press article from 1999 about an appeals court decision that Judge Hatchett wrote that year that struck down a public school policy allowing student-approved prayers at graduation ceremonies in Florida. The decision, which overruled a lower court, held that the policy violated constitutional protections of freedom of religion.

Did you know you can share 10 gift articles a month, even with nonsubscribers?
Share this article.
“He voted against student-led school prayer in Duval County in 1999,” Mr. Clyde, a deacon at his Baptist church in Bogart, Ga., said in an interview. “I don’t agree with that. That’s it. I just let the Republicans know that information on the House floor. I have no idea if they knew that or not.”

Representative Vern Buchanan was among the Florida Republicans who voted against a bill they had co-sponsored to name a federal courthouse after Judge Hatchett.

Since being sworn in last year, Mr. Clyde has drawn attention for comparing the deadly Capitol attack to a “normal tourist visit” and voting against a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to police officers who responded that day. He also opposed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, which made lynching a federal hate crime and explicitly outlawed an act that was symbolic of the country’s history of racial violence. Mr. Clyde also voted against recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday.

The naming of federal buildings is among the more mundane tasks that Congress undertakes, and it is usually a consensus matter. In the Senate, it is often accomplished without debate or even a recorded vote, which is how that chamber passed the measure to honor Judge Hatchett in December. In the House, it is typically considered under a fast-track process reserved for uncontroversial matters that limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

But Mr. Clyde’s late objection turned the routine ritual into a conservative litmus test for Republicans, who quickly joined him in turning against Judge Hatchett.

The bill failed on a vote of 238 to 187, falling short of the two-thirds threshold, with 89 percent of Republicans opposed.

“I was appalled,” said Representative Kathy Castor, Democrat of Florida, who grew up hearing about Judge Hatchett from her father, a former county court judge. “I was looking around, saying, ‘What is happening?’”

A legal legend in his state, Justice Hatchett could not stay in the hotel where the Florida bar exam was being administered when he took it in 1959 because of Jim Crow laws segregating the South. When he was nominated by President Jimmy Carter to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Judge Hatchett was the first Black man to serve on a circuit that covered the Deep South.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and one of the bill’s sponsors, said the judge, an Army veteran who died last year at 88, had “lived an inspiring life of service.”

Senator Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican who co-sponsored the measure, said in a statement after the Senate passed the bill in December that Judge Hatchett “broke barriers that have inspired countless others in the legal profession.”

But Mr. Clyde found the school prayer ruling disqualifying, and the vast majority of House Republicans — including many who had initially co-sponsored the legislation — were quick to join him.

“During the vote series, a colleague shared some of the judge’s rulings with me I had not previously read,” Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. “This caused me to withdraw my support for the measure.”

Representative Gus Bilirakis, Republican of Florida, who was recuperating at home with broken ribs, voted by proxy against the bill.

“Upon learning of the controversial ruling, Congressman Bilirakis no longer wished to proceed with the building name change,” a spokeswoman said. She said he had signed on to the bill only as a “professional courtesy to the bill sponsor to allow for its consideration.” (The entire state delegation must sign off for a naming bill to be considered.)

Other supporters of the bill who ultimately voted against it said they were confused about what was happening on the House floor. Staff members for Representative Kat Cammack, Republican of Florida, were scrambling to figure out why the vote had started to go south, calling other offices to determine what was happening.

A spokesman for Mr. Buchanan, who initially did not provide a reason for his vote, clarified that the congressman had opposed the bill “because of the judge’s position against prayer at graduation ceremonies.”

Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and the minority leader, also voted “no.” He declined to comment on why he opposed the measure.

Mr. Clyde said a legislative aide had unearthed the 1999 ruling while vetting the courthouse naming bill, and he made sure to share it with his colleagues before the vote.

Livid as she watched the red lights signifying “no” fill the vote board on the wall of the House chamber, Ms. Castor said she approached one of her Republican colleagues on the floor, searching for answers.

“They didn’t articulate a reason for voting ‘no,’” she said. “It was knee-jerk, herd mentality.”

Some Democrats noted that in the decision in question, Judge Hatchett had followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Lee v. Weisman regarding student prayer in public schools.

They said they saw the episode as the latest example of extremism in the House Republican Conference, where members have weaponized cultural issues against Democrats and pushed back against efforts to grapple with the nation’s history of racism, such as the push to strip Confederate names from military bases.

“If the standard that we use is one ruling out of thousands, then what else could we conclude but that they are not willing to name a courthouse after a Black person,” said Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida. “It seems pretty suspect.”

Mr. Clyde insisted that race had nothing to do with his opposition to the measure. “We’re one race — the human race,” he said. “It has everything to do with the decision he made.”

Democrats said the fact that Mr. Clyde, one of the most junior Republicans in the House, was able to derail an uncontroversial bill that had already passed the Senate was the latest evidence that Mr. McCarthy could not control the most conservative and fringe elements of his conference.

“The inmates are running the asylum, and the minority leader is terrified to do anything but cast his lot with the most extreme and unhinged elements in his party,” said Drew Hammill, a deputy chief of staff to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy declined to comment.

Representative Al Lawson, Democrat of Florida, who sponsored a House version of the bill, said the last-minute Republican stampede against it during the final seconds of the vote was “abhorrent.”

Mr. Rubio has expressed optimism that the setback will be temporary and that Congress will find a way to name the courthouse after Judge Hatchett. House leaders are working on next steps to bring the legislation back to the floor, Mr. Hammill said.

Still, the setback has been unsettling for Judge Hatchett’s former colleagues, family members and supporters, who have called on the House to reconsider.

“What a black eye,” Ms. Castor said. “What a stain on these folks, who sponsored a bill and then flipped.”

[jhu72]

Moronic

What did you expect give the author?

[a fan]

Says it all. For those who don’t understand, a good time to reflect.



947C1FA3-72EC-48F6-87C8-2C31AD1A2187.jpeg

Yes, its say it all. Did you actually read it?

What you and he are telling us is: there have NEVER been Republicans who protected Civil Liberties. Only the Dems have done that.

And the Republicans don't plan on starting to defend Civil Liberties.

Great. Nice Fing job. Thrilled to hear it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

[cradleandshoot]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

[Peter Brown]

Not sure which thread to put the news that Elon Musk made an offer to acquire all of Twitter.

Naturally every leftist today is melting down over the possibility someone in charge of Twitter will actually embrace free speech.

It is simply a glorious thing.

What’s so revealing this morning is watching in real time the left expose themselves as both incapable of civil dialogue, as well as hiding behind BS reasons like the oft-abused “misinformation”.

I hope he buys the company and moves it to Texas or Ohio. So many of the dweebs who wreck free speech every day there will locate some other platform to destroy, so I’m not worried about their rent. My hunch is they try to infiltrate Apple and Google to do end-around damage to Twitter. And naturally the left will cheer.

Anyway, go Elon!! It’s a great day for free speech and for America-!!