Democracy is in peril

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/29/democracy-is-on-the-ballot-california-democrats-seek-to-prevent-voters-from-approving-new-taxes/#more-219445

“Democracy is on the ballot.” That mantra of President Joe Biden and other Democrats has suggested that “this may be our last election” if the Republicans win in 2024. A few of us have noted that the Democrats seem more keen on claiming the mantle of the defenders of democracy than actually practicing it. Democrats have sought to disqualify Donald Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots; block third party candidates, censor and blacklist of those with opposing views; and weaponize the legal system against their opponents. Most recently, in California, democracy is truly on the ballot and the Democrats are on the wrong side.

California has always prided itself on the ability of citizens to vote on changes in the law directly through referenda and ballot measures. That is precisely what citizens are attempting to do with a measure that would require voter approval of any tax increase, including a two-thirds vote for some local taxes. It is called the Taxpayer Protection Act and it is a duly qualified statewide ballot measure slated for the November 2024 ballot.

The state Democrats are apoplectic over the prospect of citizen control over revenue and taxes.  What was a quaint element of democratic empowerment is now challenging a core vehicle of Democratic power. So Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court to demand that citizens be denied the right to decide the issue.

In oral arguments, the attorney supporting the challenge explained to the justices that citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.

In a prior decision, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote that “Whether the context involves taxation or not, all of these cases underscore how courts preserve and liberally construe the public’s statewide and local initiative power. Indeed, we resolve doubts about the scope of the initiative power in its favor whenever possible and we narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power.”

Half of the Court seemed to be inclined to deny the public the right to decide the question.

The Court, however, may wait until after the election to render a decision on the limits of democracy in California.

 

This was done after many votes in WA.   The Ds didn't like an initiative passed by the voters and the Ds took it to the WA Supreme Court where they got the Initiative invalidated.   Looks like what they are up to here.   WA legislature is now just ignoring initiatives.   There are 6 initiatives that got enough signatures to put them on the ballot.   The state constitution clearly states that such an initiative to the Legislature (which all these are) must be debated in the legislature.   Only 3 were.   The other 3 were not.   The legislature can pass the initiative, can pass something similar, or do nothing but it must be debated.   So democracy is already crumbling and it is the Ds doing it. 

 

mspart

 

[WrestlingRasta]

I like the notion that our democracy is in peril. Can’t argue with that. Not so sure can agree that it’s all coming from one side of the aisle. 

[mspart]

I agree.   But it is the Ds that are yelling about it, the Rs are not.   The D's are doing what they can to limit our ability to vote for initiatives we want, presidential candidates we want, etc.   Yet they are the ones yelling that the Rs are trying to take away democracy.   It is projection on their part.   While doing it, they point the finger at someone else.   And the media complies. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

   But it is the Ds that are yelling about it, the Rs are not. 

mspart

Cannot, in anyway shape or form, agree with this. 

[JimmyBT]

The founding fathers created a Republic with the hope that government would/could/should never get too big.  Dems want more and more government.  Hmmmmmmmmmm

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

The founding fathers created a Republic with the hope that government would/could/should never get too big.  Dems want more and more government.  Hmmmmmmmmmm

How do you figure? 

[PortaJohn]

15 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

The founding fathers created a Republic with the hope that government would/could/should never get too big.  Dems want more and more government.  Hmmmmmmmmmm

You can argue the era of "big government" began in the early 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt who was a staunch Republican.  Others like to argue it was Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln who laid the groundworks for "big government".  And then there's Thomas Jefferson himself (the small government guy) who many claim expanded the power of the presidency (centralizing the government) with the Louisiana Purchase 

[Offthemat]

Does anyone ever mention the other Roosevelt,  FDR?

[JimmyBT]

4 hours ago, PortaJohn said:

You can argue the era of "big government" began in the early 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt who was a staunch Republican.  Others like to argue it was Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln who laid the groundworks for "big government".  And then there's Thomas Jefferson himself (the small government guy) who many claim expanded the power of the presidency (centralizing the government) with the Louisiana Purchase 

That’s a lot of could argues and claims.  But  ok. 

[JimmyBT]

4 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How do you figure? 

Ummmm the first two amendments.  

[NM1965]

On 5/30/2024 at 7:19 PM, JimmyBT said:

The founding fathers created a Republic with the hope that government would/could/should never get too big.  Dems want more and more government.  Hmmmmmmmmmm

You probably know as much about Civics as you do about ethics and morality.  

[NM1965]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:39 PM, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/29/democracy-is-on-the-ballot-california-democrats-seek-to-prevent-voters-from-approving-new-taxes/#more-219445

“Democracy is on the ballot.” That mantra of President Joe Biden and other Democrats has suggested that “this may be our last election” if the Republicans win in 2024. A few of us have noted that the Democrats seem more keen on claiming the mantle of the defenders of democracy than actually practicing it. Democrats have sought to disqualify Donald Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots; block third party candidates, censor and blacklist of those with opposing views; and weaponize the legal system against their opponents. Most recently, in California, democracy is truly on the ballot and the Democrats are on the wrong side.

California has always prided itself on the ability of citizens to vote on changes in the law directly through referenda and ballot measures. That is precisely what citizens are attempting to do with a measure that would require voter approval of any tax increase, including a two-thirds vote for some local taxes. It is called the Taxpayer Protection Act and it is a duly qualified statewide ballot measure slated for the November 2024 ballot.

The state Democrats are apoplectic over the prospect of citizen control over revenue and taxes.  What was a quaint element of democratic empowerment is now challenging a core vehicle of Democratic power. So Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court to demand that citizens be denied the right to decide the issue.

In oral arguments, the attorney supporting the challenge explained to the justices that citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.

In a prior decision, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote that “Whether the context involves taxation or not, all of these cases underscore how courts preserve and liberally construe the public’s statewide and local initiative power. Indeed, we resolve doubts about the scope of the initiative power in its favor whenever possible and we narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power.”

Half of the Court seemed to be inclined to deny the public the right to decide the question.

The Court, however, may wait until after the election to render a decision on the limits of democracy in California.

 

This was done after many votes in WA.   The Ds didn't like an initiative passed by the voters and the Ds took it to the WA Supreme Court where they got the Initiative invalidated.   Looks like what they are up to here.   WA legislature is now just ignoring initiatives.   There are 6 initiatives that got enough signatures to put them on the ballot.   The state constitution clearly states that such an initiative to the Legislature (which all these are) must be debated in the legislature.   Only 3 were.   The other 3 were not.   The legislature can pass the initiative, can pass something similar, or do nothing but it must be debated.   So democracy is already crumbling and it is the Ds doing it. 

 

mspart

 

Well if a rightwing lawyer deep in Trump's camp says so, it MUST BE TRUE, huh? 

[JimmyBT]

20 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

You probably know as much about Civics as you do about ethics and morality.  

But but but you’re done with me huh????   Bhahahahahahahahhahahahaha.  Compared to you I’m a genius. 

[NM1965]

2 minutes ago, JimmyBT said:

But but but you’re done with me huh????   Bhahahahahahahahhahahahaha.  Compared to you I’m a genius. 

You are just another cognitively deficient, self-propagandized Trumpanzee. 

[JimmyBT]

17 minutes ago, NM1965 said:

You are just another cognitively deficient, self-propagandized Trumpanzee. 

Sure thing comrade 

[Lipdrag]

On 5/31/2024 at 1:10 PM, PortaJohn said:

You can argue the era of "big government" began in the early 20th century with Teddy Roosevelt who was a staunch Republican.  Others like to argue it was Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln who laid the groundworks for "big government".  And then there's Thomas Jefferson himself (the small government guy) who many claim expanded the power of the presidency (centralizing the government) with the Louisiana Purchase 

Woody Wilson gets my vote as the big government catalyst without parallel. 

 https://millercenter.org/president/wilson/domestic-affairs

[NM1965]

22 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Sure thing comrade 

Yeah, because anybody who doesn't worship at Trump's feet, like yourself, MUST be a commie, huh? 

I guess that makes most Americans "commies", huh, since Trump got curbstomped in 2020?

 

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, NM1965 said:

Yeah, because anybody who doesn't worship at Trump's feet, like yourself, MUST be a commie, huh? 

I guess that makes most Americans "commies", huh, since Trump got curbstomped in 2020?

 

If only you were smart enough to figure it out.  But you’re not.    Maybe you can read up on Karl Marx.   Is this the 4th or 5th time you’ve responded to me since you claimed you were done responding?   Typical libtard 

Edited June 2 by JimmyBT

[Scouts Honor]

On 6/1/2024 at 6:14 AM, NM1965 said:

Well if a rightwing lawyer deep in Trump's camp says so, it MUST BE TRUE, huh? 

as opposed to the leftwing prosecutors and judge who are deep in the left's camp and clearly have TDS? 

[Scouts Honor]

6 hours ago, NM1965 said:

Yeah, because anybody who doesn't worship at Trump's feet, like yourself, MUST be a commie, huh? 

I guess that makes most Americans "commies", huh, since Trump got curbstomped in 2020?

 

you think everyone who doesn't think what is happening is good is a trump boot licker.

where does that put you? 

[Scouts Honor]

 

[mspart]

Yeah, judges in NY are not allowed to make political donations.   Yet Merchan did.  Also, he presided over other Trump allies' trials.   The assigning of a judge is supposed to be random.   Obviously not.   They found the judge that they needed who illegally donated to Biden and democrats.   And the assignment was not random.   Even from that standpoint, this trial was a farce.   Not to mention that no one still knows what was actually alleged and what the jurors came up with to convict on all counts.  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-legal-guru-says-new-york-trump-prosecutors-contorted-law-case-unjustified-mess

Even CNN legal analyst Elie Honig did not agree with the premise of the trial.   I'll leave it to you to read the article. 

It is not universally accepted that the trial was proper or fair.  

mspart

 

[Husker_Du]

On 5/31/2024 at 9:51 AM, ThreePointTakedown said:

How do you figure? 

are you a ***ducking** moron?

big(ger) government is the cornerstone of the Dem platform. jfc. 

were you today years old when you started following politics? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

4 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

are you a ***ducking** moron?

big(ger) government is the cornerstone of the Dem platform. jfc. 

were you today years old when you started following politics? 

Thanks for the name calling. You're really helping your cause. Could you be more of a cliche? 

I'm sorry. I thought you understood that you were talking about the founding of the country. 

They had little confidence in non; white, land owning, men. That's how we got 2 senators, 3/5's, and the electoral college. 

The question was, how do you figure that THAT was what the founders had in mind or were worried about. 

I think most of them were racist bastards. Much of their wisdom can be thrown on the ash bin of history and forgotten. Because more than zero of them probably had syphilis and that stuff messes with your head after awhile. 

We live in a different time. No longer worried about the English invading or the French invading or the Dutch invading or Native Americans reclaiming the land we stole from them. We have more wealth and food and production capacity to support our population if we choose to. But we don't. You know why? Because a good portion of us are either; racist bastards or cynical pricks that can't stand the next generation getting a better deal(yell at clouds). 

So you know what we do? We vote against our own better interests and instead try to punish our perceived enemies(or just call them names when we feel triggered and can't regulate our emotions) Rather than voting to have universal health care and education. Instead we fill public pools with cement so that 'those' people can't use them too. 

Your arguments for not helping people and just being 'left alone' is a round about way of rationalizing greed and fear. And what we crave most is community. So if more people agree to be greedy and fearful with you, you don't feel so bad for being greedy and fearful of nothing! And I'll bet you probably give some of your money to those people that churn up pointless things for conservative people to fear: immigrants, lesbians, immigrants, trans people, immigrants, immigrants, globalists, and immigrants. Did I miss any? 

Thanks this was cathartic. Lets do it again. 

[uncle bernard]

5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

are you a ***ducking** moron?

big(ger) government is the cornerstone of the Dem platform. jfc. 

were you today years old when you started following politics? 

strange that conservatives never complain about "big government" when it comes to the local police department getting armored vehicles and high grade military weapons.

or the military getting hundreds of billions more than it needs every year.

or state legislatures determining what books schools can have in their library

or states mandating a loyalty oath to a foreign country to be a government country

and the list goes on and on