Bi-Partisan Criminal Justice Reform Passes Senate
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
You're too stupid to realize that I worded my earlier comment as I did due to this. At the time, nothing had been approved.
Even worse, that vote proves exactly my point. It had overwhelming bi-partisan support. Hell, the ACLU and Koch Brothers agreed with it. So even though this issue had overwhelming bi-partisan support and cheeto had control of both parts of Congress, he still couldn't get it done for two years . . . because he couldn't influence his own Senate Majority Leader.
That's very, very poor leadership.
Yeah, that $2500 or however much I put into that really is painful. It's almost as much as the Christmas presents I bought and delivered to the children's home for their nine children last week. That's probably as much as your ITT daughter's tuition.
Hey now, they may have another split, that will cause their stock to spike to $12 and result in a very nice return.
And Obama didn't even try to do anything about it for 8 years.
Making stuff up again? Let's take a look at what the "centrist" administration was doing recently....
The trump administration ordered federal prosecutors to charge as aggressively as possible in every case — reversing a policy of Mr. Holder’s that had eased up on nonviolent drug offenders and others who fill the nation’s federal prisons.
Rescinded an obama policy that discouraged federal marijuana prosecutions in states where its sale and use are legal.
The cheetos Justice Department has pulled back from his predecessor’s investigations of police abuse and misconduct
Resumed the use of private, for-profit prisons
Stopped granting commutations to low-level drug offenders who have spent years or decades behind bars.
"The First Step Act" is an appropriate name, as it does little to actually reform the reasons we lock up more people than any civilized nation. But you Republicans go ahead and pat yourselves on the back.
"It had overwhelming bi-partisan support."
But Raoul only mentions the GOP.
But Raoul only mentions the GOP.
Who has been in total control for the last two years? Don't play dumb, it 's not a good look for you.
And I've been bitching about this since, oh, the early 90s...where have you been?
And was silent when Obama and the Dems had complete control. But he’s a political scientist don’t ya know
Dems under Obama had a fillibuster proof control of the Senate for 4 months and the house for 2 years. So, no.
Careful, or you are going to fall into 88's dumbassedness level. I don't think it is a secret I am pro-drug legalization and thus pro-criminal justice reform. And that is nothing new, 88 JR.
anybody with half a clue would understand it'll take more than 2 years to fix 8 years worth of fvckups.
So you agree that Obama also exercised poor leadership by failing to get anything done in 8 years? As you note, this had bipartisan support.
But this reform as bipartisan support, so what does that have to do with anything?
No, prison reform didn't have overwhelming bipartisan support for Obama's 8 years. And it wasn't even close. For much of Obama's first term, prison reform was viewed as a far left, ultra liberal view. Hell, Obama only had Congress on his side for a quarter - the first 2 years - of his entire presidency, when prison reform was not only not a hot topic, but it also was viewed as a far left topic.
Due to not having control of both sides of Congress and gridlock, he used numerous executive orders to help prison reform and start changing the stigma around it. And if you want me further educate you on everything he has done, by all means, simply ask, Tier Three.
Well then we are fvcked for a while on this topic, because a lot of the issues started during the Reagan Administration. Hell, Nixon started the war on drugs.
My post had to do with 429 saying "Obama and the Dems had complete control."
And if prison reform had bipartisan support, why did it take McConnell 8 years to bring it to the floor?
Exactly. Tier Three thinks that just because prison reform has bipartisan support now, that it means it's been like that for the last decade. It hasn't.
Hell, with the privatization of prisons earning money for companies (and being funneled to political campaigns), what moron would think it had bipartisan support? Thankfully, Obama started reducing the privatization of prisons. Then, just last year, the cheeto administration REVERSED that policy.
You fools are so ate up with hatred for Trump you can't even acknowledge when this admission does something positive. It's this type of intellectual dishonesty that makes everything else you post suspect to conservative-leaning posters. It's alsoalso no one takes any of you seriously. It's pretty pathetic. BTW, I love how the resident celebrity hanger-on, record producing, D3 water boy is also an expert on criminal justice reform.
It isn't him, it's Congress. Fvck those guys. This is the best they can do? Now, if they could do better and then he didn't sign it, fvck him instead.
God, this is awful. Nowhere did I claim to be an expert on criminal justice reform. Simply observing what politicians have done doesn't make one an expert. The fact that you're trying to claim I think I am a criminal justice reform expert simply because I am aware of what the last two presidents have done on that topic shows a serious, serious lack of intelligence. That's why you're referred to as Tier Three.
I'm not an expert on talk show hosts, but I know that Ellen and Steve Harvey are two of the best afternoon talk show hosts. How do I know that without being an expert? I look at facts and observe. Likewise, I look at facts and observe what each of the presidents have done for prison reform. That doesn't make me an expert on the topic.
My god, you truly are not a bright person by trying to make that claim.
But nice job avoiding the crux of the discussion. You tried claiming that Obama's time in office had strong bipartisan support of prison reform. It didn't. You tried claiming that he didn't do anything regarding prison reform even though he had the same opportunity as cheeto (which is false); and you're wrong on both of those claims. So instead of wanting to discuss any of those things, you make an even dumber argument by trying to claim I am touting myself as some sort of expert.
When you are thoroughly dominated by somebody far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you, I guess it would appear that the other person is an expert on a lot of things. I have never experienced that first-hand, but I can understand why you bring such an illogical argument to the board.
During his second term, Bobama was the first sitting Pres to visit a prison. I remember making jokes that he was visiting a prison that likely had guys in there for dealing drugs Obama openly bragged about using in his autobiography.
How do you know the level of bipartisan support at that time? Did he or his party ever bring any proposals on legislative reform up for a vote? That's a serious question, because I don't recall any.
If they did, and it was voted down by Republicans, I stand corrected. If not, you're just throwing sh*t against the wall and hoping it sticks to support your political ideology.
I never said he "didn't do anything." Talk about reading comprehension. I said he was unable to pass criminal justice reform through legislation. He wasn't, and didn't. That's not false, it's an incontrovertible fact.
The exact bill was made under Obama in 2015. It simply didn't have the support because it wasn't a hot-topic issue even though Obama was the first president to ever discuss the topic in a State of the Union. Without something being a hot-topic in the public's eye, it simply doesn't get Congressional support.
That's exactly what you said. You said he "failed to get anything done." That is the same as "didn't do anything." It's not reading comprehension failure on my part. It's you not knowing what you said.
That's why he used memorandums and executive orders. You realize Republicans in Congress weren't supporting much of anything Obama brought to the table, right? It caused Congressional gridlock. Hell, look at the shutdown of the federal government, Congress refusing to do their job and vote for the Supreme Court nominee, etc. A group of Republicans, led by Cotton, pushed for it to go away.
McConnell, just like he had done until this week, refused to allow the bill on the floor for action until more Republicans supported it. Obama was unable to pass this legislation because of Republican leadership blocking it. That's the only thing. Had Congress been Democrat controlled for Obama's final six years, it would have breezed through. But that wasn't the case.
I remember Obama started really talking about this around 2015. That's the same year gay marriage won at SCOTUS. I don't think we could have expected helping blacks get out of jail so soon after that doozy lol.
Link to Republicans blocking Obama's criminal justice reform legislation, or stfu.
So, what you're saying is there was no proposed legislation opposed by repubs? Got it. Thx.
Oh, I love when Tier Three tries to act tough, and besides the obvious stupidity that shows, he ends up being wrong about the topic at hand.
Here, from the ABA, the organization that shakes its collective heads at "attorneys" like you:
A bipartisan group of senators led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on October 1, 2015 introduced comprehensive legislation aimed at recalibrating prison sentences for certain drug offenders, narrowing mandatory minimum sentences to target violent criminals, and granting judges greater discretion at sentencing for lower-level drug crimes. The package also seeks to curb recidivism by helping prisoners successfully reenter society. S. 2123, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (SRCA), is also sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tim Scott (R-SC).
Since the October markup, the number of Senators cosponsoring S. 2123 has grown to 28, comprised equally of 14 Republicans and 14 Democrats. However, reflected in the Judiciary Committee markup vote, there is active opposition to the bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has maintained for several months that he will not schedule the bill for floor action until it gains broader Republican support.
https://www.americanbar.org/advocac..._system_improvements/federalsentencingreform/
And here is a more in-depth explanation:
WASHINGTON — A major criminal-justice overhaul bill seemed destined to be the bipartisan success story of the year, consensus legislation that showed lawmakers could still rise above politics.
Then the election, Donald J. Trump’s demand for “law and order” and a series of other political calculations got in the way.
Senate Republicans divided on the wisdom of reducing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Other Republicans, unhappy that President Obama was reducing hundreds of federal prison sentences on his own, did not want to give him a legacy victory. A surge in crime in some urban areas gave opponents of the legislation a new argument.
“I do believe it is over,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, who put considerable effort into difficult negotiations with Republicans to strike a compromise. “We missed an opportunity.”
Speaker Paul D. Ryan is on board. The quarrelsome Senate Judiciary Committee passed its bill on a strong bipartisan vote with the imprimatur of Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman. Mr. Obama considers the issue a top priority.
“It is one of the things that makes this a frustrating place to work,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, who became a believer in a new approach to criminal justice after seeing the benefits in his home state.
Mr. Cornyn concedes the tumult of this election year was a major factor given sharp disagreement among Senate Republicans reflected in the decision by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, to not allow a vote on a proposal most believe would pass easily.
“I think that Senator McConnell understandably did not want to tee up an issue that split our caucus right before the 2016 election,” said Mr. Cornyn, who noted that aspects of the legislation had been misconstrued by its critics.
Presidential politics were at work as well. Mr. Trump has been campaigning on warnings of a United States at risk from sinister forces, even though violent crime is low compared with past decades. But crime surges in some urban areas have given opponents of the legislation ammunition to challenge it.
(You should read the full article, as these are just some of the highlights).
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/...cks-bipartisan-criminal-justice-overhaul.html
Oh, and here's an even better article discussing how Republicans almost fvcked it up again this week because of in-party fighting over it.
Take note of this line:
"Though less sweeping than the bipartisan efforts under Obama to rewrite prison and sentencing laws . . . "
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/criminal-justice-reform-republicans-trump-fight-1069171
Take note of this line:
"Though less sweeping than the bipartisan efforts under Obama to rewrite prison and sentencing laws . . . "
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/criminal-justice-reform-republicans-trump-fight-1069171
Wrong, I am saying one big change a year expends political capital. I'm actually giving Mitch McConnell an excuse.
It's not like this is a new topic...Melle Mel was rapping about it back in '83.
A street kid gets arrested, gonna do some time
He got out three years from now just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught with 24 kilos
Hes out on bail and out of jail
And thats the way it goes
I'm sorry, I missed the part where it said Republicans (that's plural for those needing reading comprehension lessons) blocked the legislation. Everything in those articles reflect that those attempts were entirely bipartisan, with Mitch McConnel being the stumbling block. So Obama couldn't force Mitch to a vote. What's different now? Trump was able to get McConnel on board with everyone else, something Obama couldn't do.
1. Attitudes about drugs are changing quickly, thanks to legal weed in many states and the opioid epidemic.
2. Trump is a Republican. McConnell didn't want to give shit to Obama the Democrat. And now he didn't want to give shit to a Democratic House. Smart guy, that Mitch.
3. Let's be real: Trump is white. That totally changes the political optics.
4. I said it before, SCOTUS and gay marriage used up every bit of progressive political capital for 2015 (and yes, Republicans can be progressive as well if they so choose). 2016 was an election year, wasn't shit getting done. So two years to convince McConnell to do something bipartisan the black, Democrat community really wanted...not bad, I guess.
You keep failing monumentally on your reading comprehension jabs, Tier Three.
Here, let me help show you what I already posted:
"Senate Republicans divided on the wisdom of reducing federal mandatory minimum sentences."
That means Republicans, plural, weren't on board with the bill for the reason stated.
"Other Republicans, unhappy that President Obama was reducing hundreds of federal prison sentences on his own . . . "
That means even more Republicans, plural, were not on board with the bill for the reason stated.
"Other Republicans . . . did not want to give him a legacy victory."
That means Republicans, plural, simply were playing the political game and didn't want to help give Obama something lasting and positive regardless if it helped the country, so they refused to support the bill.
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has maintained for several months that he will not schedule the bill for floor action until it gains broader Republican support."
That means so many Republican, plural, were not in support of the bill that their leader refused to bring it up for vote.
“I do believe it is over,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, who put considerable effort into difficult negotiations with Republicans to strike a compromise.
That means Republicans, plural, were not on board with the bill which resulted in failed negotiations, thus blocking it.
"Mr. Cornyn concedes the tumult of this election year was a major factor given sharp disagreement among Senate Republicans reflected in the decision by Senator Mitch McConnell . . . "
That means Republicans, plural, were split on supporting it or not supporting it.
“I think that Senator McConnell understandably did not want to tee up an issue that split our caucus right before the 2016 election,” said Mr. Cornyn.
That means, once again, Republicans, plural, did not support the bill.
Now, I know you aren't very bright, hence your Tier Three nickname, but there are numerous, very easy to understand references to Republicans, plural, not supporting the bill, thus blocking it. You realize that Congressman can block bills, right?
What's different now? A Republican president will credit for it, that is what's different. As I have already pasted twice, Republicans, plural, simply weren't going to support the bill because they didn't want to give Obama a long-lasting victory. Regardless of what was good for the country, the Republicans, plural, would rather sit it out and wait to see if a Republican became president. Then, when that happened, the Republicans, plural, jumped on board the next time the bill came up. That led to McConnell supporting it.
No, it has two "Ls."
Nope, it still has two "Ls." The "L" key is to the right of the "K" key.
Good idea. You should just refer to him as "Mitch" to avoid having to spell words with more than one syllable.
I think you mean "you" and not "your."
See, I don't call you out for simple mistypes of a key. I call you out for dumb shit - like spelling the same thing incorrectly multiple times, unlike your attempt which I spelled correctly numerous times in that same post.
But I am glad you were able to find a ginormous white towel to throw into the ring.
Latest posts
-
-
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
-
