That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency's thoughts on reproductive health and weed.
Way to rule instead of represent.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
157 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4437 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on ~~reproductive health and weed.~~ anything.
There would literally be no reason for ballot initiatives at all any more. And who's to say that Utah wouldn't try to say this applies to elections too? "Republicans argued it would be dangerous to have certain people elected to government that cannot be substantially controlled."
And remember. This Supreme Court.
Remember, there was a time when only white male landowners could vote. Senators weren't elected. The VP was whoever was 2nd place in the Presidential race. There would be nothing stopping this supreme court from using this law to take us right back there if not even further back under the guise of "constitutional originalism" or whatever flimsy justification they use. Could be considered too dangerous. And if those pesky things like "laws" are too dangerous for Republicans, let me tell you about brown people. Or black people. Or Democrats. Sit down, lady. Yes, you. The Utah government has just decided that women voting is just too dangerous, so since you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter any more.
And since this bill is designed to be retroactive, what's to stop them from doing something like this:
- Bill: "This bill would make marijuana legal."
- Voters: "OK!"
- Legislators: Thanks for passing this! But it's too dangerous. New version: "This bill would make marijuana ~~legal~~ punishable by a 10 year minimum prison sentence." Now go round 'em up, boys! The voters voted for it! 10 year prison sentences for everybody!
Why is having the runner up be VP a bad thing? Asking seriously.
First thought that comes to my mind is conflict of interest, why would you help the other party when you could hinder them.
They are less likely to get along which would lead to additional drama.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this effectively mean that Utah lawmakers are asking voters to give them the power to ignore voters?
From the article:
Democrats decried the decision as a “power grab,” while Republicans argued it would be dangerous to have certain laws on the books that cannot be substantially changed. The proposal would let lawmakers apply their new power to initiatives from past election cycles.
Seriously, WTF?
There's so much to unpack in just two sentences.
Yup, and their only answer to the question of "what if this is abused" is "voters can still vote the representatives out if they do wrong".
Leaving silent the fact that the Utah supreme court just ruled that they did change/ignore voters choice in redistricting (total fucking gerrymandering).
So. "It's the law, so it's moral" is essentially what their end goal is, without mentioning that they would have near infinite power to make and pass any law they want.
Sure, but when you say it like that it sounds bad..
"like that", meaning "out loud"?
They literally already do this. When I lived there, medical marijuana was a ballot initiative. It passed with flying colors, but then the legislature kneecapped the entire bill, basically rewriting it from scratch to make the church happy.
They did it with the redistricting (gerrymandering)as well. And then the Utah Supreme court ruled against them, saying what they did was illegal. This passing would make what they did legal.
"The party of small government."
Yup, and their only answer to the question of “what if this is abused” is “voters can still vote the representatives out if they do wrong”.
Of course. I'm sure a senator voting for something like this in 2024 would be quaking in his boots over the punishment of maybe facing a primary challenge in 2030. That'll sure scare 'em.
Nobody says what voters should do about the six god damned years in between that they have to suffer under it.
Republicans think the public is too stupid to decide what they want.
I mean, this is Republicans we're taking about.
But Republican voters think politicians are talking about other people, not them.