Fundraising for 2020/2021: Currently at $1580. Fundraising has begun, see the global post for options. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 66134
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

Texas legislature
State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year, plus a per diem of $190 for every day the Legislature is in session (also including any special sessions). That adds up to $33,800 a year for a regular session (140 days), with the total pay for a two-year term being $41,000. Legislators receive a pension after eight years of service, starting at age 60.
So who but the idle rich can afford to be a Texas state legislator?

Ballotpedia
Full-time states have legislators who devote 84 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties which include committee hearings, listening sessions, constituent service, and time spent campaigning. On average, each full-time legislator is paid about $82,358.

Hybrid states have legislators who devote 74 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties. Legislators estimate they spend more than two-thirds of a full-time job on their legislative duties. On average, each hybrid legislator is paid about $41,110.

Part-time states have legislators who devote 57 percent of a full time job to their legislative duties. On average, each legislator is paid about $18,449. These are also called "traditional or citizen legislatures" and the legislators typically need additional sources of income outside the legislature to make a living.
There are ten FT states, and fourteen PT states.

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Fireball »

Holman wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 7:25 pm
Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm
One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Why not this for all holders of public office?

You're either a public servant or you're not. The role isn't for everyone.
All elected officials? Including city council members and state legislators whose jobs are part time?

Members of Congress, Federal Judges, members of the Cabinet, sure. But "all holders of public office" is too much. The more onerous and burdensome you make being an elected official, the lower the quality of person you'll have running for office. There are lines to be drawn, and they shouldn't all be drawn in the most stringent manner possible.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 23521
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Holman »

Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:51 pm
All elected officials? Including city council members and state legislators whose jobs are part time?

Members of Congress, Federal Judges, members of the Cabinet, sure. But "all holders of public office" is too much. The more onerous and burdensome you make being an elected official, the lower the quality of person you'll have running for office. There are lines to be drawn, and they shouldn't all be drawn in the most stringent manner possible.
Good point.

Perhaps the standard should be that the more power you have, the more public you must make your records and your history. A sort of sliding scale.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 11592
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Paingod »

Holman wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:42 am
Perhaps the standard should be that the more power you have, the more public you must make your records and your history. A sort of sliding scale.
I'm okay with "If you sit anywhere in Congress or are elected to the Executive branch"
More than ever, now is the time to stand by the causes you believe in; donate and support to keep America great.
Reproductive Rights, Environmental Defense, Civil Liberties, LGBTQ Awareness, Immigration Rights
Currently playing: Lotsa' Switch - Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Fire Emblem: Three Houses

User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 12475
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by ImLawBoy »

Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm
One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter should have kept his peanut farm? My God, imagine the horrible power he would have wielded to control the global peanut markets . . . .
That's my purse! I don't know you!

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4640
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Fireball »

ImLawBoy wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:15 am
Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 5:35 pm
Remus West wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 4:22 pm
Fireball wrote:
Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:28 pm
One of the electoral reforms we should pass next year should be the automatic publication on the IRS website of tax returns for the sitting president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and all members of Congress each year within a month of the returns being filed, as well as five years of prior returns for any candidate for president, vice president or Congress within a week of a person filing the FEC forms to create a candidate committee.
That would be a good one. I'd also like to see something that would force a person like tRump to actually separate from his holdings ala Carter's peanut farm.
Yes, I'd be fine with requiring the president to sell all financial assets and put all proceeds into a blind trust, with the exception of small, family-owned businesses up to a certain size for things like family restaurants or farms.
Are you suggesting Jimmy Carter should have kept his peanut farm? My God, imagine the horrible power he would have wielded to control the global peanut markets . . . .
It's literally the only reason he ran for president, and we denied him that power!
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President
For generations, U.S. presidents have gone to great lengths to avoid potential conflicts of interest. When I was elected, I followed suit by placing my small business in a blind trust to assure our citizens that I would always put the country’s interests ahead of my own. It’s a vital presidential tradition. That’s why I find it a bit curious that our new commander-in-chief has been allowed to ignore it.

For Christ’s sake, you people made me get rid of my peanut farm before you let me be president.

I grew up on that farm. When my father died, I moved back home and worked those fields with my own two hands to keep it afloat. It was a hard job, but it was so rewarding. It wasn’t just a business—it was the place I called home. Letting go of the family farm was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do, but I did it because the American people asked me to. I did it for their sake, without enthusiasm, but also without hesitation.

Boy, times sure have changed, haven’t they? I couldn’t help but notice that the current occupant of the White House owns more than 500 companies, has business interests across the Middle East and Asia, and owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks he is now responsible for regulating. It seems a touch unfair that a bigger fuss was made about my little peanut operation than all his office towers, hotels, and golf courses combined. All I had was a farm, you know? A small, precious farm.

Seriously, it was just a few fields and a warehouse, and you idiots still appointed a special prosecutor and spent six months investigating it.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18898
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from a church in Nevada to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members to form a majority.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/us/s ... virus.html

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 66134
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Loading…

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

I don't know enough about it but that the entire right is having a meltdown is fun...oh I meant scary...to watch. The three dissenting opinions all complain about discrimination against religion. Maybe that's happening but I really, really, really doubt it. The more important thing to me is that we have a sharpening picture that the court may have several heavily theocratic jurists playing to the politics of religion now.

Edit: I just dug in now. The dissents may have a point that the churches might prevail but the applicant already has online services as an alternative. No one is saying they can't practice their religion. It seems like there is very little harm erring on the side of public health while the issue is worked out but these guys are heavily banging the drums to signal how Nevada (and the Court) is trampling all over religion.

To re-frame this a bit, the minority would have issued an order from their high seats in DC to Nevada overriding a Governor about his public health policy in the middle of a pandemic. And the only likely difference would be that the occupancy would be bumped from max 50 people to 50% occupancy limits to bring it in line with other indoor venues.

BTW, Kavanaugh doesn't seem to think that different use cases matter. In both the similar California case and this one he goes on about supermarkets. People (typically) don't hang out in super markets for hours on end, shoulder to shoulder, singing, and shaking hands. Somehow that reality doesn't matter to him. It is just 'muh religion'. Maybe someone should remind him that is a good place to get beer.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 25867
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles

User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 15542
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by pr0ner »

Isgrimnur wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:56 pm
I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.
It's consistent, since they did the same thing with a California church making a similar request a couple of months ago.
Hodor.

User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2633
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

If restrictions are being applied to groups in general, then you are not discriminating against religion. If it was only done to religions or worse specific religions, then you have a case.
words

User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 3684
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

pr0ner wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:17 am
Isgrimnur wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:56 pm
I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.
It's consistent, since they did the same thing with a California church making a similar request a couple of months ago.
Great read. And it's nice that there are some positive things to look to during these times. The following passage from that article summed up for me the thing I enjoy seeing the most:
The ruling that emerged in the consolidated LGBTQ cases reflects a new kind of consensus-building among the justices. The conservative majority is not a monolith that can be counted on to vote a certain way. Different conservative justices, following their own instincts and approaches, sometimes move left on the law.
As it should be.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.


User avatar
stessier
Posts: 25867
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm
I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 10387
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Jaymann »

stessier wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:47 pm
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm
I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
Hopefully that would involve too much work and too many lost golf rounds for marmalade man.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:47 pm
malchior wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:36 pm
I guess we can finally scratch flouting a SCOTUS decision off Trump's list.

SCOTUS said the way they tried to do it was wrong, not that it couldn't be done. They pretty much laid out the path he had to take.
Right but the judge overseeing the current case gave them an order based on the SCOTUS ruling. That Trump immediately turned around and essentially is doing nothing 'while they explore the legality of the program' is pretty much thumbing their nose at the court. It isn't like they need to invent some new process while they explore another option. This is how they've broken norms elsewhere. They step slowly into the lawlessness. If they were truly honoring the spirit of the SCOTUS decision they'd resume taking applications under the current program and go through the administrative change process.

User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2633
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
words

malchior
Posts: 12199
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Montag wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am
DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.

User avatar
Montag
Posts: 2633
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Montag »

malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:54 am
Montag wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am
DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
I get it. If the Trump admin followed proper procedures he could have killed DACA. I believe many pundits said as such. If this is such an important issue, it should be law to prevent the executive branch toying with it.
words

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 35093
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Montag wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:48 pm
malchior wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:54 am
Montag wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 am
DACA is not law, it is an executive order. I find it problematic, the court is blocking the repeal of an order instead of its creation.

Congress needs to do its job (roll eyes, snicker, sigh) and codify it.
Sorta. Implementing Executive Orders is governed by the APA. It is a framework within the law. You can think of it as Congress devolved some its power to the Executive. And the Executive has to go through a process when they create new regulations like DACA. The Trump administration needed to follow a process to dismantle DACA. And that is what SCOTUS held; the Trump administration failed to follow the right process to roll back the regulation.

The Maryland judge then ordered them to resume the program based on SCOTUS's guidance. In essence, since it was rolled back illegally then the administration logically should follow the regulation and resume applications/extensions. The Trump administration essentially said, "Nope. Not doing it. Stop us." It's blatantly lawless.

Roberts might have given them a roadmap but it doesn't mean they don't still have to do the work. If they don't and Biden wins, then he'll just pick it up as it was and continue on. Which call me crazy is no way to run a country.
I get it. If the Trump admin followed proper procedures he could have killed DACA. I believe many pundits said as such. If this is such an important issue, it should be law to prevent the executive branch toying with it.
It should be, but the GOP senate is not going to sign off. The long and short of it is if Biden wins and takes the Senate, there will be DACA codification. If Trump wins, the Dreamers are all getting deported. If Biden wins but Dems don't take the Senate... ???

Post Reply