Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
June 28, 2019
Last Night’s Debate In 14 Words
June 28, 2019 at 7:25 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
Mark Lukasiewicz: “Eric Swalwell asked Joe Biden to pass the torch. Kamala Harris just took it.”
Last Night's Debate In 14 Words
https://politicalwire.com/2019/06/28/last-nights-debate-in-14-words/Last Night’s Debate In 14 Words
June 28, 2019 at 7:25 am EDT By Taegan Goddard
Mark Lukasiewicz: “Eric Swalwell asked Joe Biden to pass the torch. Kamala Harris just took it.”
June 27, 2019
June 27, 2019 10:53AM ET
‘Tragically Wrong’: 6 Brutal Lines from Justice Kagan’s Gerrymandering Dissent
The liberal justice blasted the Supreme Court’s conservatives for abdicating their duty and putting American democracy in danger
By Andy Kroll
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled Thursday that federal courts have no role to play in striking down politically rigged congressional maps that deny equal representations to citizens of a given state. The court’s majority opinion, responding to two lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps in Maryland and North Carolina, effectively punted, saying there is no standard to decide such cases. The decision is a serious blow to voting rights groups who had hoped the high court would step in and set a precedent on the issue of gerrymandering.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s four liberals, blasted the five conservative justices. She accused them of abdicating their duties with a “tragically wrong” decision that would have disastrous consequences for American democracy. Here are six of the most blistering lines from Kagan’s dissent:
You can read the majority’s opinion and Kagan’s dissent @ link.
'Tragically Wrong': 6 Brutal Lines from Justice Kagan's Gerrymandering Dissent
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/kagan-dissent-supreme-court-gerrymandering-852999/?fbclid=IwAR13rrRZSBaZj1lcnjtF5PHeDMa3bKVzLiSdQ7tgINE88p6rC-ibWLRZqUwJune 27, 2019 10:53AM ET
‘Tragically Wrong’: 6 Brutal Lines from Justice Kagan’s Gerrymandering Dissent
The liberal justice blasted the Supreme Court’s conservatives for abdicating their duty and putting American democracy in danger
By Andy Kroll
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s five conservatives ruled Thursday that federal courts have no role to play in striking down politically rigged congressional maps that deny equal representations to citizens of a given state. The court’s majority opinion, responding to two lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps in Maryland and North Carolina, effectively punted, saying there is no standard to decide such cases. The decision is a serious blow to voting rights groups who had hoped the high court would step in and set a precedent on the issue of gerrymandering.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s four liberals, blasted the five conservative justices. She accused them of abdicating their duties with a “tragically wrong” decision that would have disastrous consequences for American democracy. Here are six of the most blistering lines from Kagan’s dissent:
“The majority’s abdication comes just when courts across the country, including those below, have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims.”
“Maybe the majority errs in these cases because it pays so little attention to the constitutional harms at their core. After dutifully reciting each case’s facts, the majority leaves them forever behind, instead immersing itself in everything that could conceivably go amiss if courts became involved.”
“The majority’s idea instead seems to be that if we have lived with partisan gerrymanders so long, we will survive. That complacency has no cause. Yes, partisan gerrymandering goes back to the Republic’s earliest days. (As does vociferous opposition to it.) But big data and modern technology—of just the kind that the mapmakers in North Carolina and Maryland used—make today’s gerrymandering altogether different from the crude line-drawing of the past.”
“For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation because it has searched high and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to apply.”
“n throwing up its hands, the majority misses something under its nose: What it says can’t be done has been done. Over the past several years, federal courts across the country—including, but not exclusively, in the decisions below—have largely converged on a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims (striking down both Democratic and Republican districting plans in the process).”
“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”
“Maybe the majority errs in these cases because it pays so little attention to the constitutional harms at their core. After dutifully reciting each case’s facts, the majority leaves them forever behind, instead immersing itself in everything that could conceivably go amiss if courts became involved.”
“The majority’s idea instead seems to be that if we have lived with partisan gerrymanders so long, we will survive. That complacency has no cause. Yes, partisan gerrymandering goes back to the Republic’s earliest days. (As does vociferous opposition to it.) But big data and modern technology—of just the kind that the mapmakers in North Carolina and Maryland used—make today’s gerrymandering altogether different from the crude line-drawing of the past.”
“For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation because it has searched high and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to apply.”
“n throwing up its hands, the majority misses something under its nose: What it says can’t be done has been done. Over the past several years, federal courts across the country—including, but not exclusively, in the decisions below—have largely converged on a standard for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims (striking down both Democratic and Republican districting plans in the process).”
“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.”
You can read the majority’s opinion and Kagan’s dissent @ link.
June 27, 2019
Chuck Todd Talked More Than Rachel Maddow And 7 Candidates At Democratic Debate
Thought I'd move this from GD before it's locked, if it's locked? 
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/27/chuck-todd-rachel-maddow-democratic-debate.html
Posted on Thu, Jun 27th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Chuck Todd Talked More Than Rachel Maddow And 7 Candidates At Democratic Debate
NBC’s Chuck Todd was only on the air for an hour, but he managed to talk more than Rachel Maddow, and 7 Democratic candidates.
Here is the word count:
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1144085551546589184
The NBC debate night one went smoothly for the most part. The candidates were very factual, and with the exception of the usual complaints about airtime distribution, everyone got a chance to talk and many issues were covered. The one problem that they had was NBC Political Director Chuck Todd talked too much. From the moment that the second hour started, Todd dominated the conversation.
The role of a debate moderator is to enforce the rules and keep the debate moving. Todd hijacked the evening with long-winded back and forths with the candidates. The Meet The Press host spent minutes going back and forth with candidates on the bogus GOP conspiracy theory that Democrats are going to confiscate guns.
more...
June 27, 2019
This Was the Most Substantive Presidential Debate in Years
And it told us a lot about where the Democratic party is today.
Tim Murphy
Senior ReporterBio | Follow
The first Democratic presidential debate didn’t focus on electability. There were no questions from NBC’s panel of moderators about polling numbers, gaffes, or the tone and rhetoric in Washington. For one night, it was as if President Donald Trump’s Twitter account didn’t even exist.
Instead, the 10 candidates who took the stage in Miami Wednesday night were peppered with a series of substantive questions about the policy fights that have consumed the party over the last two years. And they seemed perfectly content to talk about those issues. The result offered a revealing glimpse of just how much the Democratic policy conversation has evolved on a variety of issues—from economic inequality to climate to immigration.
It was also pretty good TV.
The tone was set early on. There were no opening statements—instead, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked point-blank at about 9:01 p.m. about her economic agenda. Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke was asked if he’d support a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent, and if not, what he believed the top rate should be. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was asked about corporate consolidation. On and on down the line they went—New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio fielded a question about economic inequality in his city. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan was asked about manufacturing.
It is difficult in any format—let alone a rapid-fire debate with nine other people—to pin down presidential candidates on these kinds of things, and not every question Wednesday received a satisfying answer. But it was significant that in arguably the dumbest era in American history, where policy is set while watching Fox & Friends, Democrats started off their presidential primary by talking in a serious way about their plans.
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/democratic-debate-miami-warren-beto-castro/
This Was the Most Substantive Presidential Debate in Years
This Was the Most Substantive Presidential Debate in Years
And it told us a lot about where the Democratic party is today.
Tim Murphy
Senior ReporterBio | Follow
The first Democratic presidential debate didn’t focus on electability. There were no questions from NBC’s panel of moderators about polling numbers, gaffes, or the tone and rhetoric in Washington. For one night, it was as if President Donald Trump’s Twitter account didn’t even exist.
Instead, the 10 candidates who took the stage in Miami Wednesday night were peppered with a series of substantive questions about the policy fights that have consumed the party over the last two years. And they seemed perfectly content to talk about those issues. The result offered a revealing glimpse of just how much the Democratic policy conversation has evolved on a variety of issues—from economic inequality to climate to immigration.
It was also pretty good TV.
The tone was set early on. There were no opening statements—instead, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked point-blank at about 9:01 p.m. about her economic agenda. Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke was asked if he’d support a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent, and if not, what he believed the top rate should be. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was asked about corporate consolidation. On and on down the line they went—New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio fielded a question about economic inequality in his city. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan was asked about manufacturing.
It is difficult in any format—let alone a rapid-fire debate with nine other people—to pin down presidential candidates on these kinds of things, and not every question Wednesday received a satisfying answer. But it was significant that in arguably the dumbest era in American history, where policy is set while watching Fox & Friends, Democrats started off their presidential primary by talking in a serious way about their plans.
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/06/democratic-debate-miami-warren-beto-castro/
June 27, 2019
Posted on Thu, Jun 27th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Chuck Todd Talked More Than Rachel Maddow And 7 Candidates At Democratic Debate
NBC’s Chuck Todd was only on the air for an hour, but he managed to talk more than Rachel Maddow, and 7 Democratic candidates.
Here is the word count:
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1144085551546589184
The NBC debate night one went smoothly for the most part. The candidates were very factual, and with the exception of the usual complaints about airtime distribution, everyone got a chance to talk and many issues were covered. The one problem that they had was NBC Political Director Chuck Todd talked too much. From the moment that the second hour started, Todd dominated the conversation.
The role of a debate moderator is to enforce the rules and keep the debate moving. Todd hijacked the evening with long-winded back and forths with the candidates. The Meet The Press host spent minutes going back and forth with candidates on the bogus GOP conspiracy theory that Democrats are going to confiscate guns.
MSNBC’s promotion of this debate made it appear that this would be an MSNBC and Rachel Maddow would play a more significant role. The reality is that the debates are an NBC News event, and on night one, Chuck Todd was the moderator centerpiece of the coverage.
The candidates would have had more time to talk if Todd would have spoken less.
On the second night of the debate, where four of the top five Democratic candidates will be on the stage, Chuck Todd needs to talk less and question more.
Chuck Todd Talked More Than Rachel Maddow And 7 Candidates At Democratic Debate
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/27/chuck-todd-rachel-maddow-democratic-debate.htmlPosted on Thu, Jun 27th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Chuck Todd Talked More Than Rachel Maddow And 7 Candidates At Democratic Debate
NBC’s Chuck Todd was only on the air for an hour, but he managed to talk more than Rachel Maddow, and 7 Democratic candidates.
Here is the word count:
https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1144085551546589184
The NBC debate night one went smoothly for the most part. The candidates were very factual, and with the exception of the usual complaints about airtime distribution, everyone got a chance to talk and many issues were covered. The one problem that they had was NBC Political Director Chuck Todd talked too much. From the moment that the second hour started, Todd dominated the conversation.
The role of a debate moderator is to enforce the rules and keep the debate moving. Todd hijacked the evening with long-winded back and forths with the candidates. The Meet The Press host spent minutes going back and forth with candidates on the bogus GOP conspiracy theory that Democrats are going to confiscate guns.
MSNBC’s promotion of this debate made it appear that this would be an MSNBC and Rachel Maddow would play a more significant role. The reality is that the debates are an NBC News event, and on night one, Chuck Todd was the moderator centerpiece of the coverage.
The candidates would have had more time to talk if Todd would have spoken less.
On the second night of the debate, where four of the top five Democratic candidates will be on the stage, Chuck Todd needs to talk less and question more.
June 27, 2019
Attorneys call for Trump administration to be held in contempt over border conditions
By Rebecca Klar - 06/27/19 08:53 AM EDT
Attorneys on Wednesday asked a federal judge to hold the Trump administration in contempt and take immediate action to remedy unsafe conditions they say threaten the wellbeing of migrant children held at border facilities, according to court filings shared by CNN.
The attorneys said that conditions at U.S. Customs and Border Patrol facilities in the El Paso, Texas, and the Rio Grande Valley region in Texas, pose "an imminent threat to the health and welfare of class member children detained for days and weeks."
"The children, including infants and expectant mothers, are dirty, cold, hungry and sleep-deprived," the filing reads.
The filing says that the facilities deny basic hygiene to the children, which has caused the flu to spread.
The lawsuit is based around lawyers claiming the Trump administration policies are breaking the 1997 Flores agreement which limits the amount of time the U.S. can detain migrant children.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450603-lawyers-call-for-trump-administration-to-be-held-in-contempt-over?fbclid=IwAR320tkIMsxhiQ0P23_xeVSeDbWcavyo-tLr_NGRhx6XHsviKIpzhmgWTDY
Attorneys call for Trump administration to be held in contempt over border conditions
Attorneys call for Trump administration to be held in contempt over border conditions
By Rebecca Klar - 06/27/19 08:53 AM EDT
Attorneys on Wednesday asked a federal judge to hold the Trump administration in contempt and take immediate action to remedy unsafe conditions they say threaten the wellbeing of migrant children held at border facilities, according to court filings shared by CNN.
The attorneys said that conditions at U.S. Customs and Border Patrol facilities in the El Paso, Texas, and the Rio Grande Valley region in Texas, pose "an imminent threat to the health and welfare of class member children detained for days and weeks."
"The children, including infants and expectant mothers, are dirty, cold, hungry and sleep-deprived," the filing reads.
The filing says that the facilities deny basic hygiene to the children, which has caused the flu to spread.
The lawsuit is based around lawyers claiming the Trump administration policies are breaking the 1997 Flores agreement which limits the amount of time the U.S. can detain migrant children.
"With each passing day, more hospitalizations are occurring and more lives are at risk. Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to compel immediate compliance with the [Flores] Agreement, end this health and welfare crisis, and prevent more illness and child deaths t the border," the filing reads.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450603-lawyers-call-for-trump-administration-to-be-held-in-contempt-over?fbclid=IwAR320tkIMsxhiQ0P23_xeVSeDbWcavyo-tLr_NGRhx6XHsviKIpzhmgWTDY
June 26, 2019
Facing investigation from Dems, top EPA official resigns
06/26/19 04:11 PM—Updated 06/26/19 04:15 PM
By Steve Benen
Exactly two years ago this week, lobbyist Bill Wehrum convened a meeting with his clients in the power-plant industry. On the agenda was a discussion on how best to go after the Obama administration’s safeguards on polluters.
snip//
As the Associated Press reported, the Democratic-led House Energy and Commerce Committee started investigating Wehrum’s work in April. Two months later, he decided to exit stage right.
snip//
Wehrum’s resignation may not be the highest-profile example of elections having consequences, but it’s a good one all the same.
Facing investigation from Dems, top EPA official resigns
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/facing-investigation-dems-top-epa-official-resignsFacing investigation from Dems, top EPA official resigns
06/26/19 04:11 PM—Updated 06/26/19 04:15 PM
By Steve Benen
Exactly two years ago this week, lobbyist Bill Wehrum convened a meeting with his clients in the power-plant industry. On the agenda was a discussion on how best to go after the Obama administration’s safeguards on polluters.
snip//
A top Environment Protection Agency official who helped lead the Trump administration’s rollback of Obama-era restrictions of carbon emissions is resigning amid a congressional probe into whether he improperly aided former industry clients.
EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum is expected to depart at the end of June. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced Wehrum’s resignation on Wednesday.
Ethics questions have dogged Wehrum since his 2017 nomination by President Donald Trump. He long represented the fossil fuels and chemical industries as a Washington lawyer. Narrowly confirmed by the Senate, Wehrum has helped lead EPA’s rollbacks of clean air and carbon emissions regulations opposed by his former private-sector clients.
EPA Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum is expected to depart at the end of June. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced Wehrum’s resignation on Wednesday.
Ethics questions have dogged Wehrum since his 2017 nomination by President Donald Trump. He long represented the fossil fuels and chemical industries as a Washington lawyer. Narrowly confirmed by the Senate, Wehrum has helped lead EPA’s rollbacks of clean air and carbon emissions regulations opposed by his former private-sector clients.
As the Associated Press reported, the Democratic-led House Energy and Commerce Committee started investigating Wehrum’s work in April. Two months later, he decided to exit stage right.
snip//
Wehrum’s resignation may not be the highest-profile example of elections having consequences, but it’s a good one all the same.
June 26, 2019
June 26, 2019 / 4:11 PM / Updated an hour ago
Bank of America to stop financing operators of private prisons, detention centers
Imani Moise
(Reuters) - Bank of America Corp said on Wednesday it will no longer finance operators of private prisons and detention centers, joining peers in distancing itself from a sector that has triggered protests over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The bank gave no further comment. JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. made similar commitments to stop financing private prison companies earlier this year.
Activism against the financing of private prisons has increased amid tightening immigration policies under U.S. President Donald Trump and concerns about detention conditions.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/bank-of-america-to-stop-financing-operators-of-private-prisons-detention-centers-idUSKCN1TR317
Bank of America to stop financing operators of private prisons, detention centers
June 26, 2019 / 4:11 PM / Updated an hour ago
Bank of America to stop financing operators of private prisons, detention centers
Imani Moise
(Reuters) - Bank of America Corp said on Wednesday it will no longer finance operators of private prisons and detention centers, joining peers in distancing itself from a sector that has triggered protests over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The bank gave no further comment. JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. made similar commitments to stop financing private prison companies earlier this year.
Activism against the financing of private prisons has increased amid tightening immigration policies under U.S. President Donald Trump and concerns about detention conditions.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/bank-of-america-to-stop-financing-operators-of-private-prisons-detention-centers-idUSKCN1TR317
June 26, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez’s original remarks did not specifically invoke the Holocaust.
Conditions in the detention facilities have become a flashpoint in the immigration debate in recent weeks, particularly after reports that the facilities are unsanitary and lack resources like food or soap.
Although numerous Republicans and Trump administration officials have condemned Ocasio-Cortez’s description, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) joined the Democrats who have backed her House colleague Wednesday, saying “I’m not afraid to use that word because we are concentrating people, children, in one place in horrible, unacceptable conditions.”
more...
https://thehill.com/latino/450507-andrew-cuomo-ocasio-cortezs-concentration-camp-remarks-wholly-inappropriate
Andrew Cuomo: Ocasio-Cortez's concentration camp remarks 'wholly inappropriate'
If the shoe fits...
Andrew Cuomo: Ocasio-Cortez's concentration camp remarks 'wholly inappropriate'
By Zack Budryk - 06/26/19 05:06 PM EDT
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) called New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D) characterization of detention facilities for migrants as concentration camps “wholly inappropriate” Wednesday, The New York Daily News reported.
“The Holocaust, you’re talking about a tragedy of Biblical proportion and one of the greatest scourges in history. Six million Jews died during the Holocaust, there is no comparison to the Holocaust, period,” Cuomo said, according to the Daily News.
“To draw an equivalency suggests one does not understand what happened in the Holocaust,” he added.
“To draw an equivalency suggests one does not understand what happened in the Holocaust,” he added.
Ocasio-Cortez’s original remarks did not specifically invoke the Holocaust.
“The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border and that is exactly what they are — they are concentration camps,” she said in an Instagram Q&A last week.
Conditions in the detention facilities have become a flashpoint in the immigration debate in recent weeks, particularly after reports that the facilities are unsanitary and lack resources like food or soap.
Although numerous Republicans and Trump administration officials have condemned Ocasio-Cortez’s description, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) joined the Democrats who have backed her House colleague Wednesday, saying “I’m not afraid to use that word because we are concentrating people, children, in one place in horrible, unacceptable conditions.”
more...
https://thehill.com/latino/450507-andrew-cuomo-ocasio-cortezs-concentration-camp-remarks-wholly-inappropriate
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,059
