Slashdot Mirror

Many establishment Republicans supported an individual mandate. They're the ones who pressured Boehner to to cave during the shutdown.

Heritage Action, the advocacy wing of the Heritage Foundation who endorsed the mandate for 15 years, was in favour of going into default.

You still haven't explained their support for MediCare or the VA.

The government was never in danger of a default on the debt. The debt service would have been paid first. What we were looking at was forced austerity, not default.

It probably wouldn't have default on its debt but it would have defaulted on its funding obligations.

There is no "Separation of church and state" in the constitution. There is a prohibition on establishment of a state religion.

The courts have consistently interpreted it to mean separation of church and state, how is school prayer and teaching of religious theories (creationism) anything but establishment of a state religion?

In what way does an ID requirement disenfranchise minorities? You have to argue that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID if you think that requiring one is designed to disenfranchise them.

But, never let the truth get in the way of your leftist rhetoric.

LK

Or that minorities are poor and less likely to have ID, Voter ID laws disenfranchise people and the occurrence of voter fraud is vanishingly low. Republicans are usually smart enough not to say they're trying to disenfranchise voters explicitly but if you look around there's plenty of quotes where they openly admit the goal of the laws is to win elections. I'm sorry but the evidence that Voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise Democratic leaning voters is fairly overwhelming and I'm happy to throw more evidence at you if you continue to disagree.

In Indianapolis this morning, it took till about 8:30 to finish getting the electronic machines working in about 175 precincts. But these are the handicapped accessible machines that almost no one uses - they cost $10,000 each. People vote paper ballots that get optically scanned.
Gilmore fans who object to showing ID without a warrant are offered provisional ballots, which then don't get counted. My lawsuit about that continues: joellpalmer.blogspot.com

In Delaware County, home of Ball state, polling hours have been extended to 8:30 pm because MicroVote machines weren't working at first.

Electionlawblog.org is one place to follow glitch reports during the day.
+2 informative insightful

They're doing everything they can not to pass real laws, and barely failing at that.

Like reauthorizing the which almost failed, or passed amended to death. While Georgia, one of the states specifically covered by the Act, almost forced many of its Black voters out of their voting rights again.

The people create a government to protect our rights. The government we've created that now sits in Washington protects only the appearance of protection. This November, you can fire your House Representative, and probably one of your Senators. Get to work!

Actually yelling Fire! is the classic counter-example.
It is free speech to yell Fire!
The expression comes from a 1919 case, schenk v united states http://laws.findlaw.com/us/249/47.html
in which some guys were put in jail for passing out leaflets opposing the war and suggesting that the draft was involuntary servitude and thus unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment.
The case is taught not because it was right, but because it was wrong, to show how the modern view of the first amendment has evolved. It was brave wobblies (www.iwww.org) who took up the fight for free speech in the 1910s on the west coast, and gradually judges came to agree.

There are a number of reasons one might want to yell Fire in a crowded theater. It might be a line in a play, or the theater might be on fire.

Otherwise, I largely agree with parent poster.

For people interested in free speech and the FEC and blogging, here are a few resources:
http://www.electionlawblog.org/
http://redstate.org/
http://instapundit/
http://volokh.com/
http://electionline.org/
http://votelaw.org/
http://jamesmadisoncenter.org./
The supreme court currently has two cases about campaign finance. In one of them, wisconsin right to life v FEC, there are some signals the court will start to grant a series of narrow exceptions to McCain-Feingold as upheld in McConnell.
Assuming Alito gets confirmed by then, he might be a 5th vote for free speech, so this will be a case worth watching, as a signal for where things might be headed.
Meanwhile there's a lot of work to do in congress to pass the internet-exception-to-McCain bill,
we need to keep watching the FEC as it drafts new rules on blogging regulation-or-not, and in state courts under state constitutions to protect internet speech from state election authorities which continue to try to impose censorship.
Nobody reads my election law blog, http://ballots.blogspot.com./
Meanwhile, Fire!

I don't know, who?

[T]his is really no different from the New York Times endorsing a candidate for president (or running an oped supporting or opposing such a candidate).