RSS

Tag Archives: dissent

Private Prison Industry Gets Payback from the Chumph As Republicans Pass Laws Criminalizing Dissent

Slouching towards a Nazi state, Republican Lawmakers in ten states have proposed laws criminalizing civil protest.

While at the same time, the Chumph readies private prisons to handle the masses of prisoners.

The Chumph and Republicans making America a fascist state.

 

Justice Department reverses directive to phase out private prisons

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) | AP Photo

Trumpminister Sessions prepares for the Reich

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Thursday the Justice Department would “rescind” the department’s previous directive to scale back the use of private prisons.

“I hereby rescind the memorandum dated August 18, 2016, sent to you by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, entitled ‘Reducing our Use of Private Prisons.’” Sessions wrote in a directive sent to the acting Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Thomas Kane.

“The memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice, and impaired the bureau’s ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system,” Sessions added.

The new directive withdraws Yates’ memo, which had asked the prisons bureau to “substantially reduce” its use of private prisons “in a manner consistent with law and the overall decline of the Bureau’s inmate population.”

“Private prisons served an important role during a difficult period, but time has shown that they compare poorly to our own Bureau facilities,” Yates wrote in her memo.

She highlighted that private prisons no longer “provide the same level of correctional services, programs and resources.”

“They do not save substantially on costs, and as noted in a recent report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety and security,” she added.

A Justice Department spokesman explained Sessions’ action by saying the new instructions would give the prisons bureau greater “flexibility.”

“This will restore BOP’s flexibility to manage the federal prison inmate population based on capacity needs,” the spokesman said in a statement.

Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Homeland Security made a similar move to wind down the use of private detention facilities. The actions adversely affected the stock prices of leading companies in the private prison industry.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Even the CBC Has Heartburn With Obama SCOTUS Choice

Support among Progressives and even old line Liberal factions of the Democrat party is tepid for Obama’s “compromise choice” for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. This does not portend well for an all out confirmation fight. Would be nice if the CBC exhibits some cajones for a change. Sick of this one-way “compromise” shit. Obama may well find himself out in the cold with progressive support on this one, especially in view that the pending election is shaping up to be an all out donnybrook.

The CBC – Not Feeling the Love on Obama’s SCOTUS Pick

Black lawmakers irked by Obama’s Supreme Court choice

Some African-American lawmakers are urging their Congressional Black Caucus colleagues to skip a meeting with Valerie Jarrett because of discontent with President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

Several black lawmakers are irked by Obama’s selection of a moderate judge instead of a progressive who could rally the base, according to three lawmakers and senior aides familiar with the meeting. They also don’t feel as if their input was adequately sought by the administration before Merrick Garland was nominated.

A source said members are asking themselves “what is the point” of attending the meeting now that Garland has been nominated.

And some black lawmakers questioned why Garland, who is white, was selected over a minority who could have made the court more diverse.

Jarrett, a senior advisor to Obama, was on the Hill Thursday to meet with the CBC about Garland’s nomination and other topics, according to a source.

The process to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat has been sharply acrimonious. Senate Republican leaders are refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland, saying Obama should not be able to influence the ideological bent of the court so close to a presidential election.

Progressives have expressed tepid support for Garland. National progressive groups said they wished the selection was more liberal but they still planned to back Obama in his fight with congressional Republicans.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Uncle Tommy Clarence Blows a Gasket on Gay Marraige Decision

Uncle Tommy Clarence didn’t get on the court by being the brightest lightbulb in the pack. He demonstrates it again in his dissent on Gay Marriage equality…

Clarence and Virginia Thomas

Clarence Thomas Has The Weirdest Dissent To The Marriage Equality Case

WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia may have penned the most colorful dissent to Friday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, but his colleague Clarence Thomas wrote the weirdest.

Thomas, alone among the four dissenting conservative justices, seemed to recognize that the legal reasoning he and his fellow dissenters were bringing to bear on same-sex marriage could also apply to interracial marriage. That’s a problem for Thomas, because only bigots oppose interracial marriage, and he presumably didn’t want his dissent to be seen as window-dressing for hatred. Thomas tried to get around this uncomfortable parallel by arguing that Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that required every state to recognize interracial marriage, wasn’t really about marriage after all. Here’s what he wrote:

Petitioners’ misconception of liberty carries over into their discussion of our precedents identifying a right to marry, not one of which has expanded the concept of “liberty” beyond the concept of negative liberty. Those precedents all involved absolute prohibitions on private actions associated with marriage.Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), for example, involved a couple who was criminally prosecuted for marrying in the District of Columbia and cohabiting in Virginia, id., at 2–3. They were each sentenced to a year of imprisonment, suspended for a term of 25 years on the condition that they not reenter the Commonwealth together during that time.

In other words, Thomas is saying, the Loving decision was actually about letting interracial couples live together without being arrested. And OK, yes, it’s true that Richard and Mildred Loving were criminally prosecuted. But it’s ridiculous to claim that the decision overturning their conviction simply decriminalized interracial cohabitation. Here’s what then-Chief Justice Earl Warren actually wrote in that case:

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause … The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence… Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

If you’re still not sure whether that decision was about marriage, then consider that it overturned interracial marriage bans in 16 states… kind of like how Friday’s decision overturned same-sex marriage bans in 13 states. Thomas can say whatever he wants, but his reasoning here is hard to defend. (Incidentally, Thomas, who is black, is married to a white woman named Virginia, because you can’t make this stuff up.)…

Clarence continued with:

Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Arguing that there is no “Dignity” clause in the Constitution. And “Life”, “Liberty” don’t bestow some small measure of happiness and dignity? The basis of slavery was to strip the slaves of their human dignity…thus the better to control them.

Thomas concludes with…

“Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on ‘due process’ to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the ‘liberty’ protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society,”

 

 
5 Comments

Posted by on June 26, 2015 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: