American politics 2016: Lawyers, Guns, and D-Money

lol at apple ngaf

It's from http://tofias.net/blog/2016/02/has-apple-been-neglecting-politics

today John McCain wrote a NY Times op tribute to the last Lincoln Brigade fighter from Spain who died a few weeks ago. You know, a Communist!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/opinion/john-mccain-salute-to-a-communist.html

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-merrick-garland-kill-the-filibuster

The conflict between the new guard and old will likely come to a head over a Supreme Court nomination. If a moderate like Garland can get majority support but not sixty votes, what will the Democrats do? It is a good bet that they will go nuclear again—and abolish filibusters for Supreme Court nominees as well. That would be a healthy step for both Democrats and democrats. The filibuster has become a cancer on the legislative process, creating the need for supermajorities on even the most routine business. The less it exists, the better.

Supporters of the filibuster will warn that if it is abolished for Supreme Court nominees, it will soon be abolished for legislation too—and then the Senate will become more like the House. And that will be fine. The Senate is, by design, a less than democratic body; there is no real justification for the fact that small-population states like Vermont and Wyoming have the same number of senators as California and Texas. The existence of the filibuster only exacerbates the anti-democratic nature of the chamber. Merrick Garland’s nomination will prove consequential indeed if it helps usher the filibuster to its long-overdue demise.

it's a nice dream

So I'm still pretty sickened by HB 2 in North Carolina, but these are a few articles I found useful for context:

http://www.autostraddle.com/after-north-carolina-9-states-14-anti-trans-bills-332746/

http://www.autostraddle.com/kourtney-yochum-becomes-the-7th-trans-person-murdered-this-year-we-find-ourselves-asking-the-same-old-questions-332736/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-conservatives-increasingly-care-where-you-pee-20160308

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/who-birthed-anti-trans-bathroom-panic

auto straddle eh

Eh, Mey Rude's coverage of trans issues has been solid, and I found the breakdown of legislation in the other article to be useful.

anybody should be able to use any public restroom imo

I agree, but playing on people's transmisogynistic fears (as most of their rhetoric presents trans women as predatory deviants) gives the Republicans an easy wedge issue, as noted upthread and in that Rolling Stone article. I don't think it's mentioned in the articles I posted, but Lambda Legal and the NC branch of the ACLU will probably be spearheading challenges to the law, as far as I know; it remains to be seen who will join them.

anybody should be able to use any public restroom imo

I'd like to hear what women ilxors would say about this idea.

I don't see any good reason to gender single-user restrooms; it's not clear to me that gender-segregated shared restrooms are necessarily safer for it, but I'm more agnostic on that question. The bathroom bills, however, aren't about ensuring women's public safety, they're about restricting visibly trans people's access to public space.

Merritt Kopas wrote her MA thesis and some related talks on restrooms and gender regulation, incidentally, but I've only skimmed her thesis:

http://mkopas.net/files/KOPAS_UW-thesis-2012.pdf

http://mkopas.net/files/Kopas_AGREAA-Trans-Studies_2012_text.pdf

last time the gop was filibustering, people said the dems in power didn't abolish it because senators like to keep power in the senate. is that still the conventional wisdom?

I don't see any good reason to gender single-user restrooms

I agree with this completely.

As for multi-user restrooms, I would imagine that rape victims might have some qualms about abolishing gender distinctions entirely, but I am not a rape victim and cannot speak for them.

Only reason I can see to gender single-user restrooms is that men are disgusting and make huge messes and women should not be subjected to that.

Only reason I can see to gender single-user restrooms is that men are disgusting and make huge messes and women should not be subjected to that.

Ha ha, you have never had to clean women's restrooms for a living.

That ... is true. Are there typically puddles of urine in women's restrooms?

fetuses everywhere iirc

I do want to reiterate that this is a side question (there is currently no movement to abolish gendered bathrooms); the real issue is that conservatives are invoking an imaginary problem to further stigmatize an already marginalized group of people. It really isn't much different from nineteenth century laws against crossdressing.

I don't see any good reason to gender single-user restrooms

I agree with this completely.

I'd agree with this if women didn't fear sexual assault from men.

don't think segregating single-user restrooms really has anything to do with that

Single-user bathrooms almost always have locks on their doors to ensure privacy.

So it looks like Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and Equality NC are filing suit against the North Carolina law: http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/3/27/equality-groups-filing-suit-against-north-carolinas-anti-lgbt-law

excellent RS article, relating this non-issue to the cynical calculus of an election year is a good lens to use imo

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/03/28/breaking-nathan-deal-will-veto-georgias-religious-liberty-bill/

someone noticed the sound of a bunch of organizations tentatively scratching georgia off their list of places to hold events

i mean, yeah.

There are a thousand levers that can influence human behavior; it's interesting to see which move whom and when.

hollywood does alot of business in georgia due to sweet sweet tax incentives and they threatened to bail on the state if this went through so I'm not surprised

http://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2016-03-28/transcript-deal-hb-757-remarks-0

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the “hands-off” admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

Some of those in the religious community who support this bill have resorted to insults that question my moral convictions and my character. Some within the business community who oppose this bill have resorted to threats of withdrawing jobs from our state. I do not respond well to insults or threats. The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will make sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion. That is what I intend to do.

As I've said before, I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia of which my family and I are a part of for all of our lives. Our actions on HB 757 are not just about protecting the faith-based community or providing a business-friendly climate for job growth in Georgia. This is about the character of our State and the character of its people. Georgia is a welcoming state filled with warm, friendly and loving people. Our cities and countryside are populated with people who worship God in a myriad of ways and in very diverse settings. Our people work side-by-side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to. We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way.

aside from Hollywood, GA wants the Super Bowl - that paragon of moral fibre - in a few years as well.

good speech, Deal.

headline should be A New Deal

shit they need to reboot New Coke as well

these religious exemption bills are insane. it seems like the very reason the first amendment was written was to prevent these. when a court case is decided down the road, they will literally be defining what is Christian religion. the first amendment seems written to forbid that?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

i guess they lean on the "prohibiting the free exercise" bit. which is dumb. cos it says FREE exercise. as in nobody is being oppressed, nobody is wielding power over another. that is FREEDOM.

it seems like the very reason the first amendment was written was to prevent these.

There's some double negative paradoxical circular logic to them. We did not have freedom of religion, so it was added as part of the bill of rights, thus protecting our right to practice our religions, which is being infringed upon by those exercising their right *not* to practice our religion. Therefore we need our religion further protected from those whose protections infringe upon our rights to practice our religion, which infringes on their protected rights. So the solution is the lessen their rights to better secure ours. Etc.

also pretty sure 'it is a sin to do anything for and/or be nice to gay people' is not in the bible

have you read the bible backwards? *metal salute*

But they are taking away my right not to be nice to people, which is an implicit precept of the Bible.

North Carolina's attorney general has announced that his office will not be defending HB 2. His remarks focus on the law's likely damage to the state's economy and reputation: https://mobile.twitter.com/dominicholden/status/714839764180938752

But also touch on what was really the standout point of Kennedy, J's opinion last year in the marriage equality case, which is that enshrining discrimination in the law is both unconstitutional and repugnant to the national character

Andi McClure on twitter: "Reminder that North Carolina SB2 exists more or less entirely as part of McRory's gov reelection campaign & his opponent is the atty general"

Now another bill protecting homophobic and transphobic discrimination is past the Mississippi House, and likely to make it through the Senate tomorrow:

https://mobile.twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/714966131723919361/photo/1
https://mobile.twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/714966131723919361

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CewR6GyW4AA9QaE.jpg

"Male (man) and female (woman) THE LORD created them, referring to their immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth"

So do we know who's written these laws? ALEC? The Family Council? Someone Koch-related?

I think it's the Family Research Council:
http://www.frc.org/transgender

That brief concludes by presenting trans people's identities as delusions, and transphobia as a matter of conscience:

A person's sex (male or female) is an immutable biological reality. In the vast majority of people (including those who later identify as "transgender"), it is unambiguously identifiable at birth. There is no rational or compassionate reason to affirm a distorted psychological self-concept that one's "gender identity" is different from one's biological sex.

Neither lawmakers nor counselors, pastors, teachers, nor medical professionals should participate in or reinforce the transgender movement's lies about sexuality--nor should they be required by the government to support such distortion.

Along similar lines, the Republican Party resolved a few months ago to challenge the Obama administration on Title IX: http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/2/25/republican-national-committee-endorses-anti-trans-bathroom-bills

Enshrining those three particular religious beliefs into law is so clearly a First Amendment violation under Lemon, but I wouldn't trust the conservative wing of this Supreme Court to give even a passing nod to it at this point.