Tuesday Twitter roundup

The ripples from this are still spreading across the political pond:

Some very important points to consider:

If courts do not possess the power to take such action, then what’s to stop a legislature from completely rewriting the constitution – even, perhaps, to the point of changing provisions that make it unconstitutional? By the logic employed by the legislative defendants, there was no limit at all as to how far the General Assembly could have gone. Surely that can’t be a legitimate outcome. What if the legislative majority had taken office via, say, blatant vote theft or bribery? Could such a body also rewrite the constitution?

Berger’s argument that Collins’ ruling invites “chaos” by calling into question all other acts of the illegally elected General Assembly is equally unpersuasive. First of all, no one is making such an argument; that claim wasn’t part of this case. Secondly, Collins’ ruling was a very limited, careful and practical one of the kind that courts clearly retain the right to fashion.

Just as, for instance, the courts that found legislative maps to be unconstitutional were within their authority to allow elections to proceed given the impossibility of implementing new maps in time for the 2018 election, so must judges retain the power to make practical distinctions between day-to-day legislative acts like passing an appropriation and permanently altering the state constitution.

There's another issue that needs to be cleared up, because it's making Evil Steve want to say bad words at people: This ruling does not set a "bad precedent," or really any precedent at all. For all practical purposes, precedent is set by higher courts, like Courts of Appeal or Supreme Courts. A lawyer who refers to a Superior Court ruling that has not been challenged and fired on the crucible of a higher court, is a lawyer about to lose whatever case he (or she) is arguing.

We also need to avoid splitting hairs like this:

I don't agree with Jeff's assessment of this ruling, but I also don't agree we should push to have all legislation overturned that was passed since 2012. This decision hinges on a handful of overriding votes, and the fact that Amendments require 2/3 votes. I *can* see all legislation that was Vetoed and subsequently overridden being questioned, but not everything else.

Now you're just pissing me off. If you really cared about veterans, you'd be helping the 23,000 with no health insurance get covered under Medicaid expansion.

Chad Adams still has a show? WTF am I talking about, Pat McCrory's got a show, apparently you really don't need a brain to get one.

You know, in a reasonably sane world (much less perfect), the Republican co-sponsors of that bill would raise hell if it was buried in committee. But we don't live there.

She's not wrong...

This just keeps getting crazier and crazier...

I'm kind of enjoying seeing right-wing nutters attacking "Rinos," but that little Thomasina Tillis just might give me nightmares...

And there is (absolutely) nothing wrong with that. Pipelines like this cause significant environmental damage, not to mention abusing private property owners. Forcing them to mitigate such damage by injecting funding into those affected areas is sound public policy. Had McCrory still been Governor, he probably would have paid Duke Energy incentives to tear everything up. Get over it, there is no "smoking gun" of corruption here, just a Governor trying to actually do the job properly.

Ah, the same disingenuous argument we've heard a thousand times before. The Republican Party of today would defend the rights of those "property" owners, and give women just 2-3 places (or 1) in the entire state to cast their votes, just like they do with abortions. But thanks for playing, I always hope these flawed comparisons will remind Republicans of what they should be doing.

To be honest, we should just go ahead and institute "vote by mail" across the board. Washington state has been doing this for a few years now, and the people seem to love it.

On that hopeful note, here's your Onion:

I feel compelled to give a short lecture about how using discretion online can actually make you smarter. But it would probably be pointless, so...

Tags: 

Comments

Bonus Onion:

Honestly, that was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw reports of this (you don't think I actually watched the game, do you?). I also thought of this: