 |
| Put her in coach, she's ready to play, today |
Actually, he’s introducing two bills. One, “The President Joe Biden Jim Crow on Steroids Voting Act,” would replace Georgia’s new election law with Delaware’s much more restrictive provisions. Instead of up to 19 days of early voting and no-excuse voting by mail, the state would permit no early voting or absentee voting without an excuse, i.e. unless you’re sick or will be absent from the state on Election Day. The other bill, “The Senator Chuck Schumer ‘Racist Voter Suppression’ Voting Act,” would replace Georgia’s new law with New York’s electoral laws instead. That means nine days of early voting instead of 19 and, again, a requirement that voters have an excuse in order to obtain an absentee ballot.
This is a stunt, in other words, by Wes Cantrell’s own admission. But it’s a good one, as it highlights in a stark way the Democrats’ cynicism in demagoging Georgia’s new statute. If you want voters to understand how insincere some of the concerns about “Jim Crow 2.0” are, show them the rules that certain blue states use to govern their own elections. Offer them a choice: Would you rather vote in a system as liberal as Georgia or one as stingy as the Democratic president’s home state?
Stacey Matthews at LI, Biden’s Lies About Voter Law Cost Georgia The All-Star Game "President Biden and White House press secretary Jen Psaki continued to make false claims about Georgia’s voting law even after they were debunked. Within 48 hours of Biden’s ESPN interview, MLB announced they were pulling the All-Star game." Jonathon Turley, Psaki’s Alternative Facts: How The Georgia Election Law Became Part of Our Alternate Political Reality
Psaki is not a lawyer but the silence on her defense of these false representations by the President is deafening. Trump made false claims about the size of his inauguration crowd. This is a false claim about a law being used to support a boycott of an entire state (and a major argument for federalizing state election rules). One would think that the call for accuracy would be even greater in this context.
At the same time, the very Georgia officials (who were lionized for their bravery and integrity in the last election by Democrats) are now being accused for pushing through a set of changes that are worse than the Jim Crow laws put into place after the Civil War. The two specific reasons repeatedly cited by the President have been shown to be gross misrepresentations. However, these “alternative facts” fit a narrative that has, once again, found favor in the news. The law is worse than Jim Crow because of the political rather than the historical or legal realities.
Gov. Abbott has decided enough is enough. He released a letter Monday telling the Rangers that he will not support the politicization of baseball and therefore will not throw out the first pitch.
“I was looking forward to throwing out the first pitch at the Texas Rangers’ home opening game until @MLB adopted what has turned out to be a false narrative about Georgia’s election law reforms,” Abbott tweeted Monday. “It is shameful that America’s pastime is being influenced by partisan politics.”A few years ago, Texas passed voter ID over objections similar to those the Democrats are lobbing at Georgia’s law now. They claimed — with no evidence — that voter ID would suppress minority votes in Texas. I looked into this claim after Texas conducted elections under that law and found that rather than suppress minority votes, minority voting actually increased. I also got CNN to publish a piece providing the proof.
Abbott attached a letter he addressed to Neil Leibman, president of operations and chief operating officer for the Texas Rangers.
In it, he told Leibman that while Texas was proud to host the playoff games and World Series in his state last year, it would not seek to host any other MLB special events, including the All-Star Game.
The NYT (cited at Hot Hair) analyzes Inside Corporate America’s Frantic Response To Georgia’s Voting Law
It is a head-spinning new landscape for big companies, which are trying to appease Democrats focused on social justice, as well as populist Republicans who are suddenly unafraid to break ties with business. Companies like Delta are caught in the middle, and face steep political consequences no matter what they do.
Wouldn't it just be safer to stay out of politics? Via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 04.05.21 the The Lid: Murder Turtle Threatens Woke Corporations Objecting To Georgia’s Election Reforms and Da Tech Guy: Corporations Need To Stay Out Of Politics. Sophie Mann at JTN points out CEOs condemn Georgia voter ID law, while their own companies require valid photo ID
A bit of good news from Jake Dima at WaEx, Capitol Police officer wounded in car-ramming attack released from hospital. Meanwhile at PM, Media declares Capitol Hill attacker and Nation of Islam member Noah Green 'delusional' amid ongoing investigation "Noah Green, the suspect who drove a car into the Capitol Hill barrier, killing a police officer and wounding another, is now being characterized as having mental problems by the MSM." Well, it can't be about race, and it can't be about guns, so what's left? Reuter's claims Half of Republicans believe false accounts of deadly U.S. Capitol riot-Reuters/Ipsos poll. In other words, half of Republicans disagree with your spin. Speaking of spinmeisters, Tyler O'Neil at PJ reports SPLC Predicts 'More Violence' Because Republicans Don't Buy the Left's Narrative on the Capitol Riot. Across the pond at the Guardian, Lois Beckett wonders Why aren't we calling the Capitol attack an act of treason? Y'all have been, but it wasn't. Matt Margolis at PJ, Former President Trump Lambasts Media for Biased Election Coverage, ‘Other Than That, Happy Easter!’
Paul Bedard at WaEx, Democrats don't trust elections either, 19% of all voters say Biden and Trump elected 'fairly'. Which is one of the reasons I'm pretty sure Democrats cheated massively in 5 key cities they controlled; to avoid losing to Trump in the electoral college again. WSJ ruminates behind a paywall, Like 2016, 2020 Isn’t Going Away,"Our elections are racy, but meddling by intelligence officials shouldn’t be tolerated."
Wombat's In The Mailbox: 04.05.21 Gabe Kaminsky at Da Fed reports Poll Shows Murkowski Losing To GOP Primary Challenger By Double Digits and Daryl Housman at Da Caller, New Poll Spells Big Trouble For Lisa Murkowski. Don't get too excited, though, remember she won once on write ins after being primaried.
Issie Lapowsky at Protocol, Justice Thomas argues for making Facebook, Twitter and Google utilities "Thomas argues that some digital platforms are "sufficiently akin" to common carriers like telephone companies."
Last fall, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that it was time to rein in Section 230 immunity. Now, Justice Thomas is laying out an argument for why companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google should be regulated as utilities.
On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling in finding that President Trump had acted unconstitutionally by blocking people on Twitter. That case, which the justices deemed moot, hinged on the idea that the @realdonaldtrump account was a public forum run by the president of the United States, and therefore, was constitutionally prohibited from stifling private speech. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas agrees with the decision, but argues that, in fact, Twitter's recent ban of the @realdonaldtrump account suggests that it's platforms themselves, not the government officials on them, that hold all the power.
"As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms," Thomas writes. "The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions."
Thomas argues that some digital platforms are "sufficiently akin" to common carriers like telephone companies. "A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people," Thomas writes. "Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way."
Thomas argues that while private companies aren't subject to the First Amendment, common carriers are unique to other private businesses in that they do not have the "right to exclude." Thomas suggests that large tech platforms with substantial market power should be bound by the same restrictions. "If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform's right to exclude," Thomas writes.
The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Selina Kyle & Catwoman and FMJRA 2.0: Love Removal Machine ready on time and under budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment