web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "felons"

Joe Biden Won the Contest For the Most Ridiculous Statement At Last Night’s Debate

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-620x317 Joe Biden Won the Contest For the Most Ridiculous Statement At Last Night’s Debate prison Politics Non-Violent Joe Biden jail Front Page Stories Front Page felons Featured Story Elizabeth Warren Election donald trump democrats criminals Crazy Beto O'Rourke 2020

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at Dartmouth College, Friday, Aug. 23, 2019, in Hanover, N.H. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Last night, two bad teams got together to pillow fight on Thursday Night Football, yet if you decided to watch it instead of the Democratic Primary debate, congratulations. You made the right decision.

It was full cries of racism, lies about socialism, and Trump bashing, and as per usual, lots and lots of crazy policy proposals. On that front, a surprising candidate took home the award for the most ridiculous one. Yes, Beto O’Rourke wants to take your guns and Elizabeth Warren claims her bazillion dollar programs won’t raise taxes on the middle class, but Joe Biden said something last night that eclipses them all in terms of sheer insanity. Given he’s the supposed “moderate” in the race, that’s not a contest he’s supposed to be winning.

This is Joe Biden, so the first thing we have to ask is whether he even knew what he was saying. This is the same guy who can’t remember what day it is half the time and nearly had his eye explode on national TV. In other words, it’s possible he’ll walk this back.

For the time being though, let’s talk about how nonsensical this is.

Imagine world where “non-violent” criminals like drug dealers, financial scammers, and thieves carry no chance of incarceration. Heck, we don’t even have to imagine it. Just take a flight out to California and witness the chaos caused by the fact that shop-lifters aren’t arrested unless they steal over $900 (Prop 47). What’s that led to? People stealing $800 worth of stuff knowing they likely won’t be pursued and certainly won’t be jailed.

Now, take that outcome and multiply it’s effects by a million and you’d get what would happen if we stopped giving jail time to non-violent criminals. There would be zero deterrent to committing robbery, carrying out white collar crime, or bribing someone in power. The drug cartels would explode even more as nearly every part of their apparatus would no longer be subject to imprisonment.

I’m sure Biden will walk this back. Perhaps he already has. But what this shows though is just how bad he is at this. The guy’s teeth nearly fell out of his head last night as he garbled his words. He talked about record players in a bizarre answer at one point. Am I really supposed to believe this is the guy that’s going to out campaign Donald Trump? No doubt, he starts with major advantages which I’ve laid out before. He’s “ole Joe,” the comfortable, safe pick for a lot of moderates. But this campaign has barely started and if Biden somehow stumbles into the nomination, Trump is going to absolutely work him over. Whether that translates into winning in 2020, I don’t know because Trump has his own issues with voters. What I do know is that Democrats should probably be wishing for someone more capable to take on the incumbent.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Joe Biden Won the Contest For the Most Ridiculous Statement At Last Night’s Debate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenDemDebate-300x153 Joe Biden Won the Contest For the Most Ridiculous Statement At Last Night’s Debate prison Politics Non-Violent Joe Biden jail Front Page Stories Front Page felons Featured Story Elizabeth Warren Election donald trump democrats criminals Crazy Beto O'Rourke 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

San Francisco: Let’s not call them “felons”

Westlake Legal Group SanFran San Francisco: Let’s not call them “felons” The Blog San Francisco names language felons

San Francisco is currently in freefall when it comes to homelessness, drug addiction and crime. That much is fairly well established. But the Free Beacon reports that they’ve come up with a way to tackle the last of those three problems. People don’t like hearing about all of the felons roaming the streets, but rather than arresting them, how about we just call them something else? You know… like “justice-involved persons.”

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors proposed new language guidelines to re-shape the way people talk about those in the crime industry. Words such as “felon,” “offender,” and “convict” would be replaced by “person first” terminology. Under the proposal, a convicted criminal would be referred to as a “formerly incarcerated person,” or “justice-involved individual,” or even a “returning resident.”

The board’s resolution, which is non-binding, was approved last month. The district attorney has endorsed the measure, although the city’s mayor has not.

This is yet another example of trying to win the war of public opinion by controlling the language that’s used. Once you control the way people speak, you’re well on your way to changing how they think. Calling recently released convicts “returning residents” or “formerly justice-involved persons” is one way to get people to stop complaining about your city’s inability to get your crime problem under control.

In reality, not only are these changes absurd, but they’re not even accurate. Or at least too vague to be useful. A “justice-involved person” could also be a judge, a lawyer or a cop. A “returning resident” might be a child molester who is on the sex offender registry or somebody coming back from vacation. Don’t you think those are rather important distinctions if you’re a resident of the neighborhood?

We’ve seen too many examples of this in the past. This is the same principle behind the liberal push to refer to illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” I suppose a person robbing a bank is simply making an undocumented withdrawal.

Homelessness, crime, mental illness and drug addiction are all problems that seem to exacerbate each other when they come into contact. The City by the Bay is currently watching all four of these factors spiral out of control and they seem powerless to do much about it. But one thing is for sure. Coming up with kinder and gentler ways to refer to criminals isn’t going to do anything to alleviate the problem.

The post San Francisco: Let’s not call them “felons” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group SanFran-300x153 San Francisco: Let’s not call them “felons” The Blog San Francisco names language felons  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

When you drop your gun in front of the cops

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-math When you drop your gun in front of the cops The Blog police oops NYPD New York City handgun felons

Just a quick hit to make the evening pass more pleasantly for you, involving our boys in blue in New York City. Specifically, these are the NY Transit Police, and they’re out there keeping Gotham residents safe, even from the stupidest people imaginable.

This story takes place inside of a Dunkin’ Donuts shop (because how could a cop story not involve a donut shop…) where three officers had stopped off for a short break. In strolls a gentleman who might possibly have looked familiar to the police. Not because he was a fellow first responder, but because he had multiple felony convictions. That made it rather problematic for him when he went to adjust his shorts and a loaded handgun fell onto the floor. His day went downhill from there. (CBS New York)

Of all the places in the world for a repeat felon to drop an illegal firearm on the floor, a cop-filled doughnut shop is pretty much the worst spot for that to happen.

Three NYPD Transit officers were at the Dunkin/Baskin Robbins shop on Surf Avenue in Coney Island on Sunday when they say another customer adjusted his pants and dropping a loaded handgun onto the floor.

The NYPD Transit police tweeted “Seriously, this actually happened.”

Somebody is on their way back to the crowbar hotel. Sadly, there was no security video available of the epic fail taking place, but the local CBS Outlet has this short bit of coverage with all the players involved.

As mentioned in the report, the Transit Police tweeted about the incident as soon as it happened.

Kind of amazing that this guy was walking around with a loaded weapon when he has multiple felonies on his record. Did no one tell him that it’s illegal for him to own a gun? Must have been some sort of misunderstanding is all I can figure.

Anyway, you’ve heard us report that New York City has a vastly lower murder and gun crime rate than Baltimore, despite having nearly fifteen times the population. I normally assume that it’s because of superior police work. But after this report, I’m starting to wonder if it’s actually just because they have the stupidest criminals. Or possibly a combination of both. Anyway, enjoy the tale.

The post When you drop your gun in front of the cops appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-math-300x162 When you drop your gun in front of the cops The Blog police oops NYPD New York City handgun felons  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Should felons serve on juries? California seems to think so

Westlake Legal Group Handcuffs Should felons serve on juries? California seems to think so The Blog serve jury felons

California is still tinkering around with their own special version of democracy. The latest lab experiment they’re looking to conduct comes to us in the form of Senate Bill 310, introduced by Nancy Skinner, a Democratic state Senator from Berkeley. It would allow convicted felons who have been released to serve on juries. She describes the bill as an effort to “ensure that California juries represent a fair cross-section of our communities.” Currently, felons are not allowed to serve. Skinner compares serving jury duty to felons having the right to vote. If you can do one, why not the other?

John Phillips, writing at the Orange County Register, sees things a bit differently. He describes this as an effort by Democrats to reduce the number of people in prison by ensuring nobody gets convicted in the first place.

Currently, felons are prevented from serving on juries because of their obvious and inherent bias against prosecutors and law enforcement.

If you honestly believe that jurors in California who’ve served time won’t be more lenient towards accused criminals, I’ve got a bullet train to sell you.

People who have a family member in law enforcement are excused from jury duty all the time because of the possibility of bias, even unconscious bias.

How can someone who’s served time be considered free of bias?

That’s like having crazy cat ladies vote on how many cats a person should own.

At least at first glance, I can see both sides of this argument, but one is founded in theory while the other is a bit more of a recognition of reality. As to the theory, when a person has finished serving their sentence in prison, along with possible time spent on parole and paying any fines that are owed, they have “paid their debt to society.” At that point, they’re released back into the general population of citizens in good standing. From that perspective, one could readily argue that they should certainly be able to both vote and serve on a jury.

And then there’s the reality. As Phillips implies in his column, voir dire is hard enough as it is. You have to be something of a mind reader to pick a good, unbiased jury out of the pool. You’ve got plenty of regular, working-class folks you might love to have on the jury doing their level best to avoid being chosen. Meanwhile, there might be some tricksters with nothing but time on their hands who are putting up a good front and hoping to be picked. Anyone answering questions indicating that they might have the least bit of bias is almost always rejected immediately and we still don’t always manage to get it right.

How in the world are we to believe that someone who has done hard time in prison isn’t going to come away from that experience with some bias toward prosecutors and the criminal justice system? Sure, there may be a percentage who turn over an entirely new leaf, but would you really want to bet your career on which ones those are? And as to the state Senator’s explanation of why California should do this, voting and serving on a jury are not the same thing. Voting is a right and except in specific circumstances, everyone is entitled to it. Serving on a jury isn’t a right. It’s a duty. It’s got the word “duty” right in the description. And most of the country is trying to avoid it anyway.

This doesn’t seem like a very good plan. Then again, this is California we’re talking about after all. What else did I expect?

The post Should felons serve on juries? California seems to think so appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Handcuffs-300x159 Should felons serve on juries? California seems to think so The Blog serve jury felons  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bernie Sanders’ felon voting idea hasn’t exactly caught on

Westlake Legal Group Bernie Bernie Sanders’ felon voting idea hasn’t exactly caught on voting rights Vermont The Blog felons Bernie Sanders

To say that Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal to allow all felons to vote from behind bars has landed with a thud is a bit of an understatement. As compassionate and forgiving as he may feel Americans are, very few are ready to let the Boston Marathon bomber start casting votes, no matter how good he may look on the cover of Rolling Stone. But how bad of an idea is it and is it affecting his chances in the primary? Nathaniel Rakich at FiveThirtyEight crunched the numbers recently and they aren’t good.

As of now, at least, full re-enfranchisement doesn’t seem like a winning issue for Democrats. For example, President Trump’s re-election campaign attacked Sanders for his stance in the days after the town hall, calling it “deeply offensive” and pointing out it would allow domestic terrorists like the surviving Boston Marathon bomber to vote. Even among Democrats, the idea is controversial.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll found that Democrats opposed Sanders’s position 46 percent to 38 percent; Quinnipiac found that Democratic voters were about evenly divided on the issue. Bills to eliminate felony disenfranchisement failed to pass the legislature this year in both New Mexico and Hawaii, where Democrats have full control of state government. And no other Democratic presidential candidate has yet joined Sanders in calling for all prisoners to be allowed to vote.

The new Morning Consult poll came out today and Biden is now leading Sanders by 20 points nationally. That’s the same margin they’re seeing in the combined early primary state polls. It’s impossible to say precisely how much of Bernie’s decline can be blamed on that felon voting proposal, but it’s obviously not helping.

The reasons to suspend the voting privileges of felons serving time are many. And as the linked article shows, even Democrats aren’t generally wild about the idea of changing that. The idea of allowing them to vote after leaving prison but still on probation or under house arrest isn’t much more popular. But once they’ve fully served their time, there’s actually a fairly healthy percentage of the country that believes they should be able to return to the voting booth.

Personally, that’s pretty much how I feel about it. The theory is that if you’ve broken the law, been convicted and sentenced, once you’ve “paid your debt to society” you’re supposed to be allowed to return to the flock. The reality is very different for ex-convicts of course. Their record follows them when they apply for jobs or attempt to form new personal relationships. It’s even worse for sex offenders, who often have to spend the rest of their lives on registry lists and are limited as to where they can live.

But voting just strikes me as different. In the examples I cited above, it is the convict’s fellow citizens who continue to “punish” them after release. But that doesn’t mean the government should be able to do so. While it may be an unpopular opinion in some circles, I’m fine with allowing those who complete all of their punishment back to the voting booth. But Bernie’s idea is simply several bridges too far.

The post Bernie Sanders’ felon voting idea hasn’t exactly caught on appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Bernie-300x159 Bernie Sanders’ felon voting idea hasn’t exactly caught on voting rights Vermont The Blog felons Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65

Westlake Legal Group hoo-boy-americans-heavily-oppose-bernie-sanderss-plan-to-let-all-prisoners-vote-17-65 Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 YouGov voting Tsarnaev The Blog Prisoners felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group bs Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 YouGov voting Tsarnaev The Blog Prisoners felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

Every now and then a tweet will go viral in which someone asks, Which outlandish belief do you secretly hold?

The outlandish belief I not-so-secretly hold is that Bernie blew up his campaign by coming out strong during that CNN town hall in favor of letting the Boston bomber vote.

I don’t deeply believe it. Obviously Biden’s entry into the race has done much more to tamp down Sanders’s support than a single answer about a boutique issue has. And logically, anyone who was kooky enough to be willing to vote for Bernie before he stated his opinion about prisoners voting is kooky enough to be willing to vote for him afterward.

But the polling on this issue has been so terrible that I sort of believe it. Kind of like how I sort of believe that Taylor Swift is a Rosemary’s Baby cloned from the DNA of a well-known Satanist. You can’t really explain how you know, but you know.

New from YouGov:

Westlake Legal Group y-1 Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 YouGov voting Tsarnaev The Blog Prisoners felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

That’s a *lot* of wary Democrats. Sanders has framed his support for restoring voting rights to all prisoners as a matter of racial justice but blacks split 21/53 on the proposition. Even self-described “liberals,” Bernie’s bread and butter, stand at just 32/51 on the idea.

No wonder Republicans are rooting for this guy.

The obvious retort is to say that YouGov gamed the question. Of course if you mention “terrible people” and the Boston bomber, support will bottom out. And in fact, the crosstabs show some support for less extreme proposals to re-enfranchise felons. For instance, 65 percent say ex-felons should be allowed to vote after they’ve done their time (including 54 percent of Republicans). And the public is more or less evenly divided on whether nonviolent felons should be allowed to vote while behind bars, dividing 36/41 with 53 percent of Democrats in favor. *Maybe* if the question about letting violent felons vote too had been phrased more neutrally, e.g., “Do you support or oppose allowing individuals who are currently in prison to vote?”, Bernie would have gotten a better result.

Although we don’t really need to wonder about that. Quinnipiac did ask that question, verbatim, in its own survey recently. The numbers were a little better for Sanders — but only a little.

Westlake Legal Group q-1 Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 YouGov voting Tsarnaev The Blog Prisoners felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

It’s roughly two-to-one against instead of roughly four-to-one opposed, but a slim majority of Dems are in favor here. A moral victory for Berniebros.

A fascinating wrinkle to all this: How willing will Biden be to use it as ammunition against Sanders in the primary? On the one hand, it’s obviously a useful political weapon. On the other hand, Biden has his own liabilities on criminal justice with the left, specifically his leadership in the Senate on the Clinton-era crime bill. Former prosecutors like Harris and Klobuchar can afford to draw a tough-on-crime contrast with Bernie but if Biden does it he risks further alienating progressives by seeming to double down on his 90s view of this subject. He needs them in the general even if he can win the primary without them. Maybe he’ll attempt to kill Bernie with kindness: “I think Sen. Sanders is coming from a noble place in wanting to let killers and child molesters vote, but committing certain offenses means you forfeit certain rights” yadda yadda.

Via the Free Beacon, here’s Sanders a week ago foolishly doubling down. Why he didn’t just punt on the Boston bomber question at the town hall — “I believe nearly all prisoners should vote and we can have a national debate about the worst of the worst” — I don’t know.

The post Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bs-300x153 Hoo boy: Americans heavily oppose Bernie Sanders’s plan to let all prisoners vote, 17/65 YouGov voting Tsarnaev The Blog Prisoners felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign?

Westlake Legal Group did-bernies-support-for-letting-prisoners-vote-hurt-his-campaign Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign? warren voting Tsarnaev The Blog Suffolk Quinnipiac Prisoners New Hampshire felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group s-1 Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign? warren voting Tsarnaev The Blog Suffolk Quinnipiac Prisoners New Hampshire felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

I mentioned in this post that I’d have more to say later about his surprising downturn in Quinnipiac’s new poll, slipping to third place behind Elizabeth Warren(!) at a meager 11 percent. You might dismiss that as an outlier, noting that Sanders was at 22 percent and ahead of Warren by double digits in Morning Consult’s new poll today. Or you might chalk it up to a Biden effect: Since Sanders and Biden are the most well-known candidates in the race, Biden’s entry might reasonably be expected to steal away some “soft” Bernie supporters. For now.

But there’s another possibility. This was tucked away at the end of Quinnipiac’s poll.

Westlake Legal Group q-1 Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign? warren voting Tsarnaev The Blog Suffolk Quinnipiac Prisoners New Hampshire felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders

A disaster, even though Quinnipiac phrased the question about as charitably as they could to Sanders’s position. They could have emphasized “felons,” “violent felons,” even the Boston bomber by name. Not only is the public against this at a two-to-one clip, even Democrats are evenly split. How many casual Democratic primary voters woke up last week to news that Bernie had gone to bat for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s right to vote from death row and concluded that Trump was right — “Crazy Bernie” actually was crazy, or at least close enough that it was time to rule him out? How many progressives, like Ro Khanna, who are squeamish about letting violent felons vote decided that Elizabeth Warren was plenty progressive enough for them instead? How many lefties who are okay in principle with Bernie’s position nonetheless were cowed by the backlash and concluded that, for all his virtues, critics were right that Sanders simply couldn’t win a general election?

After all, if he was willing to lob this political grenade in the heat of a primary, what other sorts of outre positions might he surprise the party with as their nominee next summer?

This isn’t the only recent poll showing strong opposition to letting prisoners vote. Business Insider reported yesterday that 75 percent of people it surveyed online were against the idea, although that poll wasn’t weighted by race or income so it might not be truly representative of public opinion. And it’d be easy to dismiss the Quinnipiac data as one bad survey for Bernie if it had been the only bad poll for him this week — but it isn’t. New from New Hampshire:

Sanders is now tied for second, again right around 11 percent, in a state which his home state borders and which he won easily over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Again, you might see a Biden effect there, preferring to blame Bernie’s slide on Biden’s entry into the race rather than on a backlash to Sanders’s answer on prisoners voting at last week’s CNN town hall. But Biden’s only polling at 20 percent here, not indicative of a campaign-launch bounce. If anything, that’s a bit below where he typically polls in early surveys of New Hampshire. Remember too that Buttigieg also held a town hall on CNN that night and made a point of disagreeing with Sanders about prisoners voting. Now he’s tied for second — although the 12 percent he’s pulling is in line with other pre-CNN surveys of the state. It could be, in other words, that all of this is a coincidence and that Sanders is suddenly struggling for “organic” reasons, like Buttigieg’s surge and growing attention on the left to Warren’s policy slate, rather this his answer on letting prisoners vote. New Hampshire is right next door to the only U.S. states that allow the practice, after all. (Vermont and Maine.)

But maybe it isn’t a coincidence. Maybe Sanders really did confirm suspicions that he’s a wild-eyed radical with his prisoner answer and is suffering as a result. If he did, it’d be half comic and half tragic inasmuch as this is a boutique issue that really has nothing to do with Bernie’s core message. If he’s going to choose a political hill to die on, you would think it’d be related to redistribution, passing Medicare for All, for instance, or taxing the very rich to fund new entitlements. Instead he decided to go with his gut on letting prisoners vote and, at best, it’s done nothing for him poll-wise. At worst, well, just look at the numbers above. Exit quotation:

The post Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group s-1-300x153 Did Bernie’s support for letting prisoners vote hurt his campaign? warren voting Tsarnaev The Blog Suffolk Quinnipiac Prisoners New Hampshire felons Boston bomber Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC’s chief of staff on prisoners voting: Why shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have a say in those laws?

Westlake Legal Group aocs-chief-of-staff-on-prisoners-voting-why-shouldnt-the-people-most-affected-by-unjust-laws-have-a-say-in-those-laws AOC’s chief of staff on prisoners voting: Why shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have a say in those laws? voting The Blog Saikat Chakrabarti Ro Khanna right Prisoners ocasio-cortez felons Bernie Sanders ballot

Westlake Legal Group a-1 AOC’s chief of staff on prisoners voting: Why shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have a say in those laws? voting The Blog Saikat Chakrabarti Ro Khanna right Prisoners ocasio-cortez felons Bernie Sanders ballot

If there’s a bad idea floating around Congress, rest assured that it’s been endorsed by someone on Team Ocasio-Cortez.

“Seeing Bernie et al prat-fall into some dorm room bullsh*t session about prisoners voting has made my day,” says Twitter pal CuffyMeh. Elements of the Green New Deal also had an odor of dorm-room scat around them but at least that proposal sought to meet an urgent demand on the left for policies to address a problem. By contrast, letting felons vote from behind bars seems to have wandered into the national presidential conversation like a lost tourist. You should’ve just given it directions and sent it on its way, Bernie.

Now here’s AOC’s right-hand man ushering it in and seating it at the table.

Weird but true: The Bill of Rights never squarely guarantees the right to vote the way the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms. Other parts of the Constitution guarantee that the right to vote, once granted, can’t be taken away for certain specific reasons (race, most notably, per the Fifteenth Amendment). But in practice Chakrabarti’s right: The Supreme Court ruled long ago that Article I, Section 2, which requires that members of the House be “chosen every second year by the people of the several states,” guarantees “the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted at Congressional elections.” The Court says it’s a fundamental right whether or not the Constitution explicitly says so. And if you’re a Ninth Amendment fan, it’s not a long leap to believe that voting is covered there.

But I digress. The uncharitable view of Chakrabarti’s point about “unjust laws” is that the merry band of radicals in AOC’s office, not content to question the legitimacy of national borders, now would have us believe that all U.S. prisoners are to some extent political prisoners, even good ol’ Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The more charitable view is that he’s talking about only some laws and some prisoners. Which, per his later tweets, seems to be what he meant:

You can imagine a system in which some felons get to vote while others don’t. In fact, you don’t have to imagine it. As Chakrabarti’s second tweet notes, some countries already do that via “selective restriction” of prisoner voting rights. One easy way to draw lines would be to let nonviolent felons retain the franchise and to deprive violent felons, on the theory that some offenses against the community are so grievous that they disqualify the offender from civic participation. A more nuanced approach would be to grant voting rights to anyone imprisoned for violating laws whose justness is under debate. Marijuana laws, as Chakrabarti notes, are an obvious example. A poll published five days ago claimed that 65 percent of Americans now support legalizing weed; if someone’s being held under a law which there’s reason to believe most of the public would rather do away with, arguably it’s only fair to give them a say in whether those laws are retained.

But how would we decide which laws are sufficiently “under debate” to justify granting voting rights to prisoners convicted under them? And more to the point, why the hell is Bernie Sanders taking an absolutist position on this instead of proposing a more defensible “selective restriction” scheme that would exclude the Boston Marathon bomber? I can’t tell from Chakrabarti’s tweets whether he’s with Sanders or with “selective restriction” but since maximalism is the DSA’s default mode, I’m guessing it’s the former.

Not every progressive feels the same way, though. Here’s Ro Khanna, another prominent left-wing member of the Democratic House caucus and a frequent ally of AOC’s on policy, coming out for letting some — but not all — felons vote. The fact that even Khanna’s skittish about this is the surest evidence yet that it’s electoral poison.

The post AOC’s chief of staff on prisoners voting: Why shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have a say in those laws? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group a-1-300x153 AOC’s chief of staff on prisoners voting: Why shouldn’t the people most affected by unjust laws have a say in those laws? voting The Blog Saikat Chakrabarti Ro Khanna right Prisoners ocasio-cortez felons Bernie Sanders ballot  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Cher: We’re not really going to let murderers and child molesters vote from prison, are we?

Westlake Legal Group c-2 Cher: We’re not really going to let murderers and child molesters vote from prison, are we? voting vote The Blog socialism rights prisoner murderers franchise felons Cher Bernie Sanders

Nine days ago she was freaking out about Trump dumping illegals into her hometown. Last night she was freaking out about Bernie Sanders wanting to let felons vote.

Literally the only good thing that will come from this election cycle is watching Cher turn into a Republican. In real time, on Twitter.

This ideological journey can only end with her performing at Trump’s second inaugural. What more apt anthem could there be for the Make America Great Again crowd than “If I Could Turn Back Time”?

In the meantime, though, having sinned against wokeness not once but twice recently, she came under pressure last night from her lefty fans not to cross Bernie. In due course she deleted her tweet and began apologizing:

So she *does* think felons should vote, or just nonviolent felons? Or all felons minus bombers and child molesters?

We need clarity because apparently We As A People are about to have a national conversation about the injustice of child molesters not voting, thanks to Bernie Sanders and the left.

I feel like it’s a bad sign for progressives that CNN anchors, normally so quick to take sides against Trump, are themselves sufficiently weirded out by this idea that they’re handing the RNC footage like this to post.

The post Cher: We’re not really going to let murderers and child molesters vote from prison, are we? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-2-300x153 Cher: We’re not really going to let murderers and child molesters vote from prison, are we? voting vote The Blog socialism rights prisoner murderers franchise felons Cher Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Harris: On second thought, maybe violent felons shouldn’t vote

Westlake Legal Group harris-felon Harris: On second thought, maybe violent felons shouldn’t vote The Blog kamala harris felons Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Boston Marathon Bernie Sanders

On Monday night, Kamala Harris told a CNN town hall audience that “we should have that conversation” about allowing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to help select our next president. By yesterday afternoon, Harris had all of the conversation on that question she ever wanted, and then some. Speaking in New Hampshire at a campaign event, Harris suddenly backed the status quo for murderers and terrorists and others convicted of “the most extreme types of crimes”:

Harris expanded on her stance Tuesday during a Q&A in New Hampshire, calling the topic “complex” and stating that she takes the issue “very seriously.”

“I’m running for President of the United States, I’m going to be very thoughtful and serious about the issues I weigh in on,” Harris told reporters. “I’m going to think about it, and I’m going to talk to experts, and I’m gonna make a decision and I’ll let you know. I will tell you this: One, it’s a complex issue, I’m fully aware of that. Two, we right now have got a lot of work to do with the people in our country who have served their time and have been prohibited from voting.

“Currently in our country there are 6 million people who have served their time and are still prohibited from voting, and that has been an area of focus for me for quite some time and we have got to address that immediately. And so that is one of my first areas of focusing concern.

“But, do I think people who commit murder, or people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights?” Harris asked. “Yeah, I do. I’m a prosecutor, I believe in terms of, there has to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.”

Ahem. This flip-flop proves that Harris isn’t being “thoughtful” at all. The original question got explicitly framed around the example of a murdering terrorist, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. Tsarnaev placed his bomb next to an eight-year-old little boy, for heaven’s sake, and then led police on a murderous spree until he got cornered and finally surrendered like the coward he is.

Yet on Monday night, Tsarnaev’s ability to vote was worth a national “conversation,” mainly because Bernie Sanders startled her into reacting rather than thinking. Now Harris wants to backtrack, helped along by media outlets like SFGate in this case, describing this reversal as “Harris clarified her position.” No, Harris didn’t “clarify” her position — she outright changed it as the ridiculousness of arguing for Tsarnaev’s voting rights belatedly dented her consciousness long after everyone else realized how nutty Harris sounded.

There are good arguments to be made for restoring voting rights after release from prison, or perhaps better after parole and probation have ended, but not while in prison. Prison sentences are imposed as punishment for having harmed the community in some significant fashion, and that punishment has to mean deprivation of the ability to choose leadership in the community at least as long as the punishment lasts. We don’t need prison precincts on Election Night. And for those who will never get out of prison, the lack of ability to vote may not be high on the list of deprivations anyway — but those are people who are paying for heinous injuries and insults to the community, and who therefore forfeit any moral claim to participate in its body politic.

The very fact that Harris didn’t recognize that basic premise on Monday despite her years as a “prosecutor” speaks volumes about her talent and skills on a national stage. Not to mention her disconnect from everyone outside the progressive bubble in which she has marinated her entire life.

The post Harris: On second thought, maybe violent felons shouldn’t vote appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group harris-felon-300x165 Harris: On second thought, maybe violent felons shouldn’t vote The Blog kamala harris felons Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Boston Marathon Bernie Sanders  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com