Octopus Overlords

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.

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.

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.

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.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:42 amPerhaps 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.

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.

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 . . . .

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.

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.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:56 pm I ... don’t know how I feel about the decision.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:54 am The contents of his speech are...something.

I guess we're going to learn about term limits for Justices and just how large the Supreme Court can get in 2021.

malchior wrote:Another thing I consider is that 6 SCOTUS members are now Federalist Society members. That is troubling in itself. A majority of the Supreme Court belongs to a borderline extremist political society.

Last month, I wrote that Amy Coney Barrett would help to usher in a new post-truth jurisprudence on the Supreme Court. While I had cited her anti-science statements on climate change, her arrival on the court has created a new 5-4 majority against public-health science at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

When it ruled this week against New York state's decision to limit religious gatherings in a few high-incidence parts of New York City, the court proved the dangers of scientifically illiterate judges overturning government decisions that were based on scientific evidence.

...

The problem is that the apparently scientifically illiterate majority on the court missed the entire point of the restriction on religious services. Gorsuch mistakenly claims that New York state deems laundry and liquor as essential but religious services as not essential. That is false. Kavanaugh mistakenly claims that New York state failed to justify why houses of worship are excluded from the "favored class" of businesses with lesser restrictions. This too is false.

...

None of this is to argue that New York state's regulations were perfectly drawn. That is not the point. The point is that the Supreme Court should be on the side of saving lives and urging rational, science-based behavior by all, especially at this moment of maximum peril to the population. Even more than the Supreme Court, religious groups should also be siding actively and energetically with public health authorities, both to protect their own congregants and all of society. Pope Francis succored Catholics around the world by shifting to an online Mass in response to the quarantine. His recent New York Times op-ed eloquently makes the point that the common good takes precedence over simplistic appeals to "personal freedom" in protests against justified public health measures.

Our religious faiths are the great teachers of the supreme value of human life, and they can be great healers for those in mental distress during the pandemic. The message to the American people should be a united one, with the nation's faith leaders, public health specialists, the politicians and, yes, Supreme Court justices using scientific knowledge combined with compassion to end the pandemic with the maximum speed and the least further suffering and loss of life.

The Supreme Court brushed aside a lawsuit Monday aimed at barring transgender students from bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

The high court has decided not to hear the case aimed at ending an Oregon school district's policy of allowing transgender students to use facilities that match their gender identity.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal is a win for civil rights groups that worried that the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which cemented a conservative majority on the bench, would “threaten LGBTQ equality.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed three Muslims who had been placed on no-fly lists to sue for financial damages against FBI officials under a federal law meant to protect religious liberty.

Writing for an 8-0 court, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993 to prohibit the federal government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise without a compelling interest, allows the suits against the individual agents.
"The question here," Thomas wrote, "is whether that includes claims for money damages against Government officials in their individual capacities. We hold that it does."

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:11 pm Supreme Court rejects Kansas voting restriction.

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up Kansas’ petition seeking to re-establish a voting restriction crafted by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

By denying the state’s petition, the court upheld rulings by the U.S. Court for the District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found Kansas’ proof of citizenship law to be unconstitutional.

The law, which went into effect in 2013, required prospective voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or other documentation to prove their status as citizens before they could register to vote, a measure that the law’s supporters said would prevent non-citizens from voting.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:37 pm SCOTUS will be hearing NCAA case on student-athlete compensation and benefits. Depending on how they rule, this could make or break the NCAA and college sports.

Will be very interesting to keep an eye on.

stessier wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:46 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:37 pm SCOTUS will be hearing NCAA case on student-athlete compensation and benefits. Depending on how they rule, this could make or break the NCAA and college sports.

Will be very interesting to keep an eye on.

Break the NCAA - yes (and good riddance). College sports - it will change, but certainly it will continue in some form.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:01 pm Josh Barro Retweeted
Sam Stein
@samstein

NEW — Liberals, led by @brianefallon are quick out of the gate this morning calling on Justice Breyer to retire

https://politico.com/news/2021/01/06/li ... ire-455321

According to Al Franken, there is no minimum age for a Supreme Court Justice. He suggested the Democrats appoint a 12 year old to have 80 or so years of service.