EDIT: It appears this has been in place since 2003. The recent discussions around this bill appear to be on how it will be applied.
Here's the link to the proposed bill itself: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-100-040
Just the first section is chilling enough, because all it takes is for a local health officer to point to say, "you've got a communicable disease" to detain someone.
>(1) At his or her sole discretion, a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, or may petition the superior court ex parte for an order to take the person or group of persons into involuntary detention for purposes of isolation or quarantine in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, provided that he or she:
>(a) Has first made reasonable efforts, which shall be documented, to obtain voluntary compliance with requests for medical examination, testing, treatment, counseling, vaccination, decontamination of persons or animals, isolation, quarantine, and inspection and closure of facilities, or has determined in his or her professional judgment that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
>(b) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons is, or is suspected to be, infected with, exposed to, or contaminated with a communicable disease or chemical, biological, or radiological agent that could spread to or contaminate others if remedial action is not taken; and
>(c) Has reason to believe that the person or group of persons would pose a serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of others if not detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine.
I think it's kind of crazy that a state with 40 million people has one senator per million people and one Assemblyman for 500,000 people.
This is not how state government should work. I would quadruple the size of the California Legislature as a start.
2010 data: https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/2010-constituents-per-state-legislative-district.aspx
I find it outrageous that this is legal in the county and State, but apparently it is by default since it is not actually addressed as illegal per the voting regulations. For the first time in my life I bothered to look up the State Senator for my district and reached out to them using a form email, took about 5 minutes.
Here's how to do it:
- Look up your district's State Senators and Representatives: https://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
- Click on a Senator or Representative listed for your district and it will take you to a list of the Senators or Representatives, and click the "email" link under the person's contact info to send a form email.
- There is an option when you send the form message to also send it to your district's other State representatives (Senator or Representatives) so you can easily send it to all of them at the same time.
Please try it as we need to fix this broken aspect of our voting laws to prevent election meddling by people like Sawant and her supporters, who have shown they will do anything to keep their power and position.
Batson v. Kentucky establishes that striking jurors based solely on race is unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (and other cases have applied this precedent to civil cases and striking down jurors because of their sex).
Now obviously there is a huge problem with diversity in juries in America. My question is, if a state wanted to remedy this within their own jurisdiction, could they mandate that criminal defendants have the right to at least one or some jury members of their own race? Basically, this would be a form of affirmative action for juries. I am curious as to whether or not the equal protection clause would apply to a scenario like this. The Supreme Court has upheld affirmative action before, on the grounds that it is not the deciding factor for someone’s admission. However, these cases were for admissions to universities and I can imagine that the precedent might not apply to jury selection. (And as of writing this post, the Supreme Court is considering taking up another case on affirmative action regarding Harvard’s discrimination against whites and Asians, so maybe even affirmative action at universities could be partially overturned).
Regardless of how controversial this would be, would it be constitutional? On one hand, no particular jury member might be struck because of their race, similar to how no particular student is denied entry to college because of their race, so this might not violate the EPC. On the other hand, this would directly make race a factor in the selection of jury members, which could make it unconstitutional. But I’d appreciate thoughts on the issue and anything I may have missed.
I think we are all going to be told this is very normal and what the founders wanted in a few years.
Democracy-our votes kneeled in front of blackmail of violence yesterday, there's no 2 ways about it. While we outrage about Modiji kneeling the sanctity of Parliament & Executive in front of religion-motivated violent goons opposing desperately needed laws, we need to have a look at the pillars of democracy which employed their entire machinery to enable the said goons- if we need to address the structural issues.
- Foreign funding- Protests aren't cheap, ask how much money is required to ply alcohol, food, AC, gym, upkeep for hundreds for sustaining the protests for a year.
Not just Soros, foreign based Khalistanis spent massively to ensure booze,food & amenities kept flowing at protest sites.
https://np.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/li8ndq/you_might_be_sick_hearing_of_sorosfrankly_so_am/
What more, here's NYT itself admitting that the goons had foreign financial support
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/world/asia/india-modi-farmer-protests.html
- Of course, foreign funding for protests doesnt really make sense for maintaining the sovereignty of a nation. So why didn't the government ban that you, ask?
Well, it did ban and the ban was repealed instantly by our good old judiciary within a month.
https://www.opindia.com/2020/03/supreme-court-ngo-foreign-funds-agitations-protests-public-cause-politics/amp/
Currently Supreme Court is working to dilute the FCRA laws regulating foreign funding for all political/legal/religious/social activism & lobbying even further. Over 20,000 cr INR ie close to 10% of central budget is funnelled by foreign govts particularly US & EU each year for activism & conversions. Govt had made the law such that a foreign funded NGO can transfer money to any NGO as long as it is registered under FCRA, to keep a track of its activities so that foreign funding isnt used for illegal purposes. Supreme Court is claiming that asking those recipient NGOs to get registered with FCRA like the donor NGO is problematic. Really?
https://livelaw.in/top-stories/fcra-amendments-2020-supreme-court-ngos-foreign-powers-centre-diversion-of-funds-184100
https://livelaw.in/top-stories/fcra-amendments-supreme-court-foreign-contributions-ngo-supreme-court-184731
Let's look at other regulations of courts wrt these protests.
Granting bail to a literal gangster in case of armed who had led armed mobsters in attack on Red Fort on Republic Day to hoist Sikh flag at the Fort. Lakha Sidhana's bail plea literally reads "ga
... keep reading on reddit ➡I live in Texas and have served on a grand jury here. It always bugged me that the statutes of this state (and others) considers it a higher offense to kill someone (even accidentally) in the act of committing another felony, often theft, burglary or robbery, than straight up premeditated murder. Besides just the moral inconsistencies, prosecutors have a distinct advantage if they can charge capital murder or felony murder in a case, and often will if they can get away with it, to increase the likelihood of a defendant making a plead deal vs. going to trial. These types of statutes also tend to give the lives of public officials and employees a higher value than ordinary citizens, which I believe is a perversion of our democratic principles.
If you disagree with me, I would like to hear a reasonable defense of capital murder and felony murder statutes to better understand the other side of the argument.
I'm not in the Texas guard but there have been some concerns with how guard members are being treated down there.
Even if you are not in the Texas guard, we are all apart of this organization and I believe we still have a right to speak out when members are being mistreated. I've laid out the contact information for the committees in the state legislation that may hold some influence over what's happening.
I'm not saying I have first hand accounts of what's going on but if you see or hear something, it doesn't hurt to copy and paste a couple of emails into cc or bcc in Gmail and let them know of the issues and your dissatisfaction with the Texas military departments leadership.
Friendly OPSEC reminder!
House Committee on Defense & Veterans' Affairs (C305):
Chair:Rep. Richard Peña Raymond (956) 753-7722 | reppenaraymond42@gmail.com
Vice Chair:Rep. Brad Buckley (512) 463-0684 | brad.buckley@house.texas.gov
Members: Rep. Kyle Biedermann (512) 463-0325 | kyle.biedermann@house.texas.gov
Rep. John Cyrier (512) 463-0682 | john.cyrier@house.texas.gov
Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins (512) 463-0708 | barbara.gervin-hawkins@house.texas.gov
Rep. Stan Lambert (512) 463-0718 | stan.lambert@house.texas.gov
Rep. Ray Lopez (512) 463-0669
Rep. Eddie Morales (512) 463-0566
Rep. Tony Tinderholt (512) 463-0624 | Tony.Tinderholt@house.texas.gov
Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs & Border Security (C650):
Chair: Sen. Kelly Hancock (512) 463-0109 | kelly.hancock@senate.texas.gov
Vice Chair: Sen. Bob Hall (512) 463-0102 | SenatorBobHallDistrict2@gmail.com
Members: Sen. César Blanco (512) 463-0129 | Cesar.Blanco@senate.texas.gov
Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (512) 463-0114
Sen. Roland Gutierrez (512) 463-0119 | Roland.Gutierrez@senate.texas.gov
Sen. Kel Seliger (512) 463-0131 | kel.seliger@senate.texas.gov
Sen. Larry Taylor (512) 463-0111 | larry.taylor@senate.texas.gov
Lmk if any of this needs updated.
Hello,
It is clear republicans have traded away democracy and turned to full blown authoritarianism (right wing authoritarianism to preserve social conservatism i.e. fascism). What happens when they next take power? It is good to imagine the worst case scenario so we can best be prepared.
I have become a bit of a doomer on this front and I really don't know what to expect. I would imagine a worse version of Hungary. Here's what I imagine this proto-fascist america would look like, please correct me if I am wrong or describe what it would actually be:
Since voter will no longer matters, republicans would increasingly either dismantle existing institutions or build new ones to replace it. Their first step would be to get as many courts as possible under their thumb to prevent challenges to the soft coup and to prevent long term challenges to their rule, especially on abortion. To do this, they could pull a Poland Law and Justice, lower retirement age, add new judge restrictions, etc. Basically kick out as many old judges and election officials as possible. With the judiciary effectively taken out, and congressional opposition non-existent, the next step would be to attack the media. This would be to prevent negative stories of him playing and affecting voter opinion. Hungary already did this under Orban. Sure there would be protests against all of this, but that didn't stop trump before, i doubt it would now. With the courts, congress, and media under tow, the real stuff begins. We effectively turn into Russia, with a series of elite oligarchs running several markets, police crack down on dissent, real information becomes lost in a mist of lies and half-truths. Political violence breaks out as left-wing and liberal groups are beaten back by right wing ones. More Rittenhouses happen. The left and liberals respond, but courts lock up the left and liberals who respond in a similar manner. This doesn't happen for right wingers. More George Floyds happen, but information from mainstream sources is cut down, mainly spread via social media. New platform restrictions are put on social media sites, most news critical of the government is removed. Again, you could challenge this on 1st amendment basis, but courts are under right wing control, a la poland or hungary or russia.
In short, we would see a rise in political and police violence, a crack down on the media and courts, and new restrictions put in place on social media firms to prevent critical information
... keep reading on reddit ➡I am a Social Democrat who has lived in Texas since I was 5 years old. Given how conservative this state is, it's only natural that the state will have mostly conservative policies in place. However, things are now getting really out of hand here. Gov. Abbott has failed TX in an embarrassing fashion and so has Dan Patrick.
I just can't stand by and watch this state fall into right wing insanity any longer. I have to run. As it turns out, I'm old enough to run for the state's House of Representatives. The minimum age to run for this is 21, and I'm 22. So that makes me eligible to run for the House.
Unfortunately, both my representative and senate districts are occupied by Democrats and I don't want to replace them. Also, I'm still in college right now, so I need to have some time to focus on my education first.
But what do you think? Should I actually run for the state legislature post graduation? I just can't sit idly by and watch the state fall into insanity.
I am really tired of my mailbox being stuffed with this garbage multiple times per year. I can inform myself about candidates or positions online. I do not need their (respective) biased drivel, especially when the vast majority print it on non-recyclable paper.
It’s extremely important to be heard. It take only a few minutes. Be professional and polite. Let them know that Murphy’s narrow victory was a sign of things to come.
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/legsearch.asp
We should only have one legislative district per state with a proportional voting system. What do you think?
