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 "right"

Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is?

Westlake Legal Group w-4 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Is it because … lefties aren’t very nice generally?

I mean, who are they nice to? Besides Bernie, of course.

This isn’t the first time lately that she’s complained about their meanness, for what it’s worth.

She knows one of the reasons for the disparate treatment, as she explained to Eric Bolling in a subsequent interview (which you can watch in full here): “The Republicans don’t have to be attacking me now, I’m in a Democratic primary, so Republicans are like, ‘Hi, Marianne!’ And some people on the left are working for other candidates, you know how that goes.” She’s an agent of chaos in the Democratic race, a wild card offering progressive policies packaged with New Age warnings about “dark psychic forces” in the White House. Righties naturally crave Democratic electoral chaos, Democrats naturally abhor it. Ergo, righties are warmer to her than lefties are.

But there’s a point to be made here too about righties being more open to religion — or “spirituality,” in Williamson’s case — than lefties are, with some caveats. The numbers from Pew:

Westlake Legal Group 1-2 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

More Republicans signal religious/spiritual interest than Democrats do no matter how you phrase the questions, although the gap often isn’t as wide as you’d think. In the table above, for instance, the Republican advantage over Dems among those who say religion is very or somewhat important to their lives is 12 points — noteworthy, but not overwhelming. When asked if they’re absolutely or fairly certain that God exists, 90 percent of Republicans say yes but so do 76 percent of Democrats. Steer the questions away from God/religion and towards vaguer “spiritual” signposts and the gap narrows. Among those who say they “feel a sense of spiritual peace and wellbeing” at least once or twice a month, Republicans lead just 77/72.

There are some notable divergences, though.

Westlake Legal Group 3-1 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Asked where they’re most likely to seek guidance on right and wrong, 44 percent of Republicans say religion. Just 25 percent of Democrats do. Go figure righties might take appeals about “dark psychic forces” more seriously than lefties.

But wait, there’s another important distinction here. Although it’s true that most Democrats are generally religious, it is not true that religious belief is distributed uniformly across demographic lines within the Democratic Party. An eye-popping result from another Pew survey:

Westlake Legal Group g-1 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative

Just one-third of white Democrats believe in God as described in the Bible. Nearly as many, 21 percent, don’t believe in God at all. And it’s Very Online white Democrats, of course, who are writing most of the liberal commentary on the presidential race and who are heavily invested in Sanders and Warren as instruments of a social-justice revolution that can overtake America if only the rest of the field, which includes Williamson, will get out of their g-ddamned way already. (If Williamson thinks they’ve been mean to her, she should ask Beto O’Rourke how it felt to be targeted by Berniebros early in the race as a potential obstacle to socialism’s final victory.) Of course the left’s atheist-agnostic progressive pundit niche would have special contempt for someone like Williamson. They’re the ones who are “being mean” to her, not Democrats generally.

And in fairness to them, sometimes they’re right to be. Not for religious reasons but for crankery like this.

Anyway, she missed the cut for tonight’s debate and has never polled much better than an asterisk despite her splashy performances at the first two debates, so she’s effectively out of the race even though she technically remains in. From now on we’ll have to get our fix of religion, progressive-style, from Pete Buttigieg, who seems to view Christianity chiefly as a political cudgel. Although given his polling lately, he might be headed for oblivion with Marianne soon enough.

The post Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group w-4-300x159 Marianne Williamson: Why are conservatives nicer to me than the left is? The Blog right religion progressive mean marianne williamson left Faith conservative   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NYT publisher warns: Right-wingers are combing through our staff’s social media posts for embarrassing material

Westlake Legal Group n-1 NYT publisher warns: Right-wingers are combing through our staff’s social media posts for embarrassing material Wright-Piersanti The Blog sulzberger schwartz right New York Times Culture cancel

Go figure that the media should enjoy a special exemption from having its public comments scrutinized, according to the media.

It’s for the rest of the world, I guess, to navigate our modern social-media hellscape in which every intemperate and loutish comment lives forever and is grounds for a public-shaming campaign that might result in one being fired or threatened with death.

If righty activists were blazing a trail in digging through old Twitter archives of political enemies as a form of information warfare, I’d be more sympathetic to the complaint. American politics is already more cutthroat than it should be; no need to introduce some groundbreaking new method of personal destruction. If the activists were doing more than looking for public comments by reporters, like trying to doxx them, I’d be very sympathetic to their targets. But the only thing the people involved are guilty of so far, as the NYT acknowledges in a news story about this, is replicating the cancel-culture M.O. that outfits like Media Matters have been using for years. When Fox News personalities complain about Media Matters dumpster-diving on the Internet for “problematic” comments they made years ago, the response is always the same: You said/wrote these words, knowing they’d be public. They didn’t stick a microphone through your bedroom window to eavesdrop. It’s fine if you want to repent now, but we’re all accountable for our public utterances.

Except, again, the staff at the New York Times.

[Conservative o]peratives have closely examined more than a decade’s worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said. Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up. The research is said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president…

The operation has compiled social media posts from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and stored images of the posts that can be publicized even if the user deletes them, said the people familiar with the effort. One claimed that the operation had unearthed potentially “fireable” information on “several hundred” people…

“Two can play at this game,” [Sam Nunberg] said. “The media has long targeted Republicans with deep dives into their social media, looking to caricature all conservatives and Trump voters as racists.”

But using journalistic techniques to target journalists and news organizations as retribution for — or as a warning not to pursue — coverage critical of the president is fundamentally different from the well-established role of the news media in scrutinizing people in positions of power.

Do reporters at the New York Times believe they’re not “people in positions of power”?

The press has legitimized social-media spelunking to embarrass people whose social and political views are far less culturally influential than editorial staff at the New York Times. Age is no defense either: Kyler Murray got dinged for tweets he sent when he was 14. Yet Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger can barely contain his indignation in this note to Times staff:

The New York Times, which has distinguished itself with fearless and fair coverage of the president, is one of the main targets of this assault. Unable to challenge the accuracy of our reporting, political operatives have been scouring social media and other sources to find any possibly embarrassing information on anyone associated with The Times, no matter their rank, role or actual influence on our journalism. Their goal is to silence critics and undermine the public’s faith in independent journalism.

This represents an escalation of an ongoing campaign against the free press. For years the president has used terms like “fake news” and “enemy of the people” to demonize journalists and journalism. Now, the political operatives behind this campaign will argue that they are “reporting” on news organizations in the same way that news organizations report on elected officials and other public figures. They are not. They are using insinuation and exaggeration to manipulate the facts for political gain.

Calling out reporters for their social-media posts isn’t an attack on the free press, it’s the same sort of “accountability” lefties practice against Fox News routinely. If right-wing operatives uncover a bunch of racist/sexist/prejudiced public statements by staff at a newspaper that purports to be a watchdog for those same sins in other powerful people, then it’s not the operatives who’ll be guilty of undermining public faith in journalism. It’s the Times’s own employees. Even if the NYT is right in insinuating that Trump or his cronies are behind this, hoping to lash out at the Fake News Media, public statements remain fair game. And in other circumstances the Times agrees: It had no reservations about demoting Jonathan Weisman, one of its top D.C. editors, recently when a pair of tweets he sent about progressive women politicians rubbed lefties the wrong way. Management wasn’t willing to trust Weisman to be a fair broker on politics to the same extent after he sent those tweets than they were before. Why should other public statements be different?

The potential problem with a tactic like this isn’t that it’s bad to deep-dive on a reporter’s social-media posts, it’s that some enthusiasts might take their zeal to the next level by crossing the line into doxxing and harassment. Remember, a perennial cancel-culture target like Tucker Carlson has had left-wing fanatics turn up outside his home and terrorize his wife. The point of cancel culture is that certain “mainstream” commentators are actually unfit to participate in the public square; once you digest that belief, it must be tempting to try to push them out of the square through increasingly aggressive methods. If nothing else good comes of this, maybe the media’s newfound discomfort with the tactic will lead ultimately to less use of it on both sides.

Exit question: Does anyone at the Times ever actually get fired for their outre utterances or behavior? Glenn Thrush, Sarah Jeong, and Weisman are all still on staff, aren’t they? Once again, the rules of accountability are different for members of the media clergy than they are for others.

The post NYT publisher warns: Right-wingers are combing through our staff’s social media posts for embarrassing material appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group n-1-300x153 NYT publisher warns: Right-wingers are combing through our staff’s social media posts for embarrassing material Wright-Piersanti The Blog sulzberger schwartz right New York Times Culture cancel   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It’s Time for the LGBT Community to Leave a Democrat Party that Doesn’t Truly Care About Them

Westlake Legal Group AP_17207738200365-620x433 It’s Time for the LGBT Community to Leave a Democrat Party that Doesn’t Truly Care About Them right republicans Politics Libertarianism LGBT Islam Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Conservatives Christians Allow Media Exception

The LGBT community and the right have often been not the best of friends. The right, for the most part, embraces Judeo-Christian values that call the LGBT lifestyle a sin, and the LGBT community — at least its activist community — finds the right’s insistence that there are no sacred cows a problem.

Despite fundamental disagreements about what is right and wrong, evolutions have occurred that have brought the LGBT community and the right in alignment.

Many on the right still consider homosexuality a sin, but this view doesn’t equate to hate. For the religious right, we’re all sinners and many of us believe that it’s hypocritical to hate a man for his sins while asking forgiveness for our own. Besides that, we were called to love. As time goes on, this understanding seems to be more and more widespread and it’s not uncommon for a Christian to have gay friends.

Not everyone agrees with this in the Christian community, but even if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter. The right has also become more libertarian, and the “live and let live” approach to society has much of the right stating that if it’s not infringing on anyone else’s rights or taking money without asking, we don’t care what you do. Don’t force us to do anything or put us into a position to make us care, and we’re good.

The left used to embrace this kind of thing, but as time has passed, the left has also embraced other things that run completely contrary to the LGBT community’s best interests.

In its quest to be accepting and “woke,” the left has begun embracing cultures that fundamentally oppose homosexuality to the point where you can be arrested and even killed for being gay or lesbian. Not only are they embracing these cultures, but they’re also flat out kowtowing to them.

Take the recent incident with Rep. Ilhan Omar of the woke “Squad.”

As I covered in more detail previously, the Palestinian Authority has decided to chase down and arrest a group of LGBT activists who held a meeting in the West Bank in an attempt to plan and generate more acceptance. When asked if she’d condemn the PA for doing this, Omar’s response amounted to “yeah, but Israel.”

(READ: We Can Now Officially Label Ilhan Omar An Anti-LGBT Bigot)

Israel was never mentioned in this exchange, nor is it a part of the story. Omar desperately grasped at something to turn everyone’s attention to other than how Palestine was rounding up homosexuals and arresting them and landed on her favorite punching bag. She didn’t defend the LGBT community, she tried to distract from the issue.

Here we see a constant problem from the left. Gays can be literally thrown off buildings and the right will condemn this horrific slaughter and violation of human rights, yet the left will go primarily silent about it. The Pulse Nightclub shooter pledged loyalty to ISIS in a phone call to authorities before his attack, though, this is largely glossed over as it would tie the shooter to his religious beliefs.

The left’s care for members of the LGBT community seems to end where Islamic rigidity begins. The right doesn’t have this hangup. The right condemns the slaughter of innocents no matter who it is.

These incidents are common for the left and give off the impression that, in truth, Democrats aren’t really all that concerned about the LGBT community but consider the community useful. There’s a lot of posturing from candidates about their support of LGBT rights, to be sure. In fact, the 2020 Democrat candidates are planning to have a debate in October strictly around the LGBT community, but as Brad Polumbo at National Review wrote, what’s there to debate? It seems more like an opportunity to virtue signal:

What exactly would be debated? It’s hard to imagine any potential Democratic challenger offering a dissenting viewpoint on issues like gay marriage or transgender inclusion in the military. If anything, this “debate” will likely devolve into a revolving cycle of virtue-signaling agreement, with each candidate competing to sound more sympathetic to the gay plight than the others. That’s not productive — it’s performative.

The right and the LGBT community may never see eye to eye on a handful of issues, but the idea that we should all live as we want has never been more in sync between the two. Meanwhile, the left is playing house with the LGBT community while it turns a blind eye to state-enforced bigotry and religion-based executions.

The right and the LGBT community have nothing to lose by conversing more with one another, and the doors are definitely open for it. Understandings can be reached between the two and we can put behind the idea that we have to be enemies while respecting each other’s rights and wishes.

However, as time goes on, the LGBT community seems to have a lot to lose by fully embracing the performance art of the left as Democrats stay silent on — and even make excuses for — fatal bigotry and violations of human rights and basic freedoms.

Some things will need to change. For instance, the greater LGBT community will need to reject its overzealous activists which impose social and legal rules on private citizens and punishes those who don’t obey their rule of law. It’s here where you often see the right and the LGBT community come to blows.

Even at the best of times, I imagine you’ll still see friction and fights between the right and the LGBT community, but even in these moments, a standardized and simplistic set of rules can solve the problems pretty quickly. Those rules will mainly revolve around the idea that we cannot rule over each other’s lives. The Christian shouldn’t be forced to bake the cake and the gay couple can get married if they please so long as they don’t force a church to do it. No matter how complicated it gets, we can fall back on the principle that we are equal citizens.

It won’t ever be a perfect relationship, but it will be a more honest and caring relationship than the one the LGBT community currently has with the Democrats who seem to only care for show, and don’t show it when it becomes too risky.

The post It’s Time for the LGBT Community to Leave a Democrat Party that Doesn’t Truly Care About Them appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_17207738200365-300x209 It’s Time for the LGBT Community to Leave a Democrat Party that Doesn’t Truly Care About Them right republicans Politics Libertarianism LGBT Islam Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Conservatives Christians Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey

Westlake Legal Group arm-rest-4010909_960_720-620x422 Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey survey right Politics morning consult media manipulation Media left Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats confirmation bias Allow Media Exception

There’s a reason Hollywood celebrities continue to make cringe-worthy PSA’s and it’s because they have a high success rate of changing the minds of those who lean left.

According to a survey done by Morning Consult and The Hollywood Reporter, those who lean left are more easily susceptible to suggestions by the things they see in hear on the silver screen or what they see on their home screens as reported by the Daily Wire:

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about racism been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘Green Book’ or ‘Crash’?”

17% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about sexism been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’ or ‘A League of Their Own’?”

14% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about LGBTQ people been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘Brokeback Mountain’ or ‘Modern Family’?”

15% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 10% of all persons surveyed.

The survey asked: “To what extent has your opinion about climate change been changed by a docuseries, movie, or TV show like ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ or ‘Planet Earth’?”

The difference was more stark on this question. 27% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans responded with “a lot,” in contrast with 18% of all persons surveyed.

The differences remain pretty static until the question about how things seen on the screen effect environment.

The study doesn’t go into why this may be, but if I were to throw a theory out, it’s one of two things. Either those who lean Republican are naturally more inclined to be less lead by things they often understand to be fiction, or — and this is more likely — Republicans and those who lean right have been trained over time to not believe what the mainstream media pumps out.

Since the right is often maliciously targeted by the media, and many documentaries are geared toward pushing a leftist narrative than an accurate one, the right has become wary of media manipulation. Especially in the age of the internet where proof of media falsehoods are just a click away, the right tends to immediately disbelieve or withhold judgement on what’s presented to them, while the left is ready to have its biases confirmed once the mainstream presents their own beliefs back to them.

I say the latter is more accurate because no one is immune to confirmation bias, but in the age when the left is in firm control over the mainstream media, it’s much easier for those on the right to be tougher nuts to crack in terms of manipulation.

The post Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group arm-rest-4010909_960_720-300x204 Leftists More Easily Manipulated by TV and Film According to New Survey survey right Politics morning consult media manipulation Media left Hollywood Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats confirmation bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

As Biden Trip Over Another Segregationist Gaffe, Conservatives Should Let Him Fall

Westlake Legal Group Biden-TH-620x317 As Biden Trip Over Another Segregationist Gaffe, Conservatives Should Let Him Fall segregationists right Politics Joe Biden gaffe Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats collapse campaign Ben Shapiro

What is Joe Biden doing?

That’s the question a lot of people are asking. Last week, Biden found himself embroiled in a controversy, not from the right, but pushed from his left over his tacit praise of segregationists as “civil.” He also made a tone-deaf comment that they never called him “boy,” which only further inflamed matters. Biden was attempting to bolster his image as a guy who can work across the aisle, except in this case the segregationists were his fellow Democrats. The entire thing ended up blowing up in his face as Democrats and media outlets alike began digging up comments in his past that call into question his views on race.

Apparently learning nothing from last week’s episode, Biden has been caught on tape again praising a segregationist. This time it’s his self-described mentor Fritz Hollings.

That happened just yesterday. How do you go from a week of non-stop negative press over comments about segregationists to fondly reminiscing about another segregationist just days later? Biden is a gaffe machine but you’d think he could at least avoid making the same mistake twice in nearly as many days.

Even before this latest screw-up though, I noticed a growing trend among some on the right. Namely, defenses being made of Biden’s remarks.

Take Ben Shapiro’s latest podcast from Friday. During the show, he spends a good amount of time showing how the left’s attacks on Biden are bad faith and driving home how unfair they are.

Now, do I disagree with Ben? No, and he’s one of the only political podcasts I listen too regularly. But I do think Biden’s remarks were stupid and ill-advised. Given that, if the former Vice President is dead set on dousing himself in gasoline and lighting a match, I don’t feel any duty to spray him down with a hose.

Biden represents one of the biggest threats to conservatives in the country right now precisely because he (currently) matches up so well against Donald Trump, specifically in the rust belt states. That could of course change in a general, and I expect the race to close greatly, but I’m speaking only in the present for the purpose of this write up.

In the present, we have a chance to let Biden collapse in on himself. I say let him collapse.

I do not believe that decency or “truth-telling” demands a defense from conservatives of a politician who’s spent decades making bad faith arguments about them and their ideals. Biden couldn’t even be bothered to defend Mike Pence as a person after the left lost their minds over the VP being referred to as a decent guy. Further, would Biden defend Ben Shapiro if someone made an unfair attack against him? Of course not and you wouldn’t expect him to.

That’s not to say we can’t defend and help people on the other side of the aisle but we are only dealing with politics here, not life or death. In my humble opinion, if Biden is choosing to set himself on fire, politically speaking, let him burn.

 

 

 

The post As Biden Trip Over Another Segregationist Gaffe, Conservatives Should Let Him Fall appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-8-300x153 As Biden Trip Over Another Segregationist Gaffe, Conservatives Should Let Him Fall segregationists right Politics Joe Biden gaffe Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats collapse campaign Ben Shapiro   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden 2006: I don’t view abortion as a choice or a right but as a tragedy

Westlake Legal Group b-7 Biden 2006: I don’t view abortion as a choice or a right but as a tragedy War Tragedy The Blog texas monthly right kfile Joe Biden Iraq Hyde Amendment CNN choice Abortion

Via CNN’s KFile, I can’t tell you how excited I am to watch progressives process this old clip, which has been publicly available since before they twice voted en masse for Biden as vice president, with their usual equanimity.

Sneak preview: Boing Boing’s header for its post about the video is stills of Biden with a thumbs-down emoji plus a bunch of little coat-hangers.

He utters three heresies here by the standards of the left in 2019 in the course of reiterating that he supports a woman’s right to have an abortion under Roe. The first heresy is that he opposes taxpayer funding for the procedure. But we already knew that: That’s the Hyde Amendment, which he finally flipped on only this year. The second heresy is that he opposes partial-birth abortion. But that’s a heresy they might let him slide on, as that’s unfavorable political terrain for a left-wing defense of the right to choose during a national campaign.

The third heresy? Although he believes women should be free to abort if they like, he thinks it’d be good if the country gave them reasons, economic and otherwise, not to. For this perfectly sane view, that abortion is a “tragedy” to be avoided if possible rather than some empowering ritual sacrifice, he’ll likely be rhetorically disemboweled.

“It’s going to be very difficult,” Biden said. “I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it’s always a tragedy, and I think that it should be rare and safe, and I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions. There ought to be able to have a common ground and consensus as to do that.”

“I think the vast majority of the American people think that can be done. But unfortunately, we’re put in the position, you’re either, ‘eliminate abortions under all circumstance’ or quote ‘abortion on demand,’” he added. “The fact of the matter is, I’ve never known of a woman having an abortion say ‘By the way, I feel like having an abortion.’ It’s always a tragic decision made. Always a difficult decision. And I think we should focus on how to deal with women not wanting abortion.”

Watch the clip and you’ll see that when he talks about limiting the number of abortions, he’s talking about incentives, not prohibitions. He wants to make America more “hospitable” for women who’d prefer to carry their children to term, he says, noting that abortions went down during the Clinton years as the economy grew. Easing some of the financial pressure on a woman who’s pregnant will make her feel less compelled to abort in the name of economic security. That is, Biden’s challenging the left’s perpetual incantations about “choice” as the logic of their position. If you really care about the “right to choose,” wouldn’t you want a woman who’d prefer to carry to term if she could afford it to be able to exercise that choice? Is choice the ultimate good in this debate, even if it means fewer abortions, or is abortion itself the ultimate good?

That was an easier question in 2006 than it is in 2019.

But it can and will be turned around on him. If he was so concerned about economic strain on pregnant women impacting their freedom of choice, he might be asked, why did he oppose the Hyde Amendment at the time? It’s lower-income women who most benefit from taxpayer funding for abortion. What if a woman had to choose abortion because her household finances were precarious and she couldn’t afford to miss time at work due to pregnancy, but also didn’t have the money needed to pay for an abortion? Wouldn’t a Roe supporter want to make America’s legal framework more “hospitable” to that woman, too? Hope he’s ready for that question at the debates.

The post Biden 2006: I don’t view abortion as a choice or a right but as a tragedy appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-7-300x159 Biden 2006: I don’t view abortion as a choice or a right but as a tragedy War Tragedy The Blog texas monthly right kfile Joe Biden Iraq Hyde Amendment CNN choice Abortion   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