I have seen a few tweets chastising folks for describing this bill as Jim Crow adjacent, a criticism which relies on ignoring the obvious context as well as the basic fact that Jim Crow laws did not say, in the text, that they were discriminatory.
The most well-known Jim Crow voting provisions — literacy tests, poll taxes, etc. — were facially neutral laws justified as measures against fraud.
“Election integrity,” you might say.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
right. “if a legislature passes a bill and the governor vetoes it can still become law if it passes by majority vote in a statewide referendum” makes democratic sense, even if i’m not thrilled about it.
when you consider too that michigan republicans have gerrymandered themselves into a majority that can with stand consecutive popular vote defeats, it sure sounds like this is just outright minority rule
“The Senate is structurally biased against the party with a large urban constituency therefore we should use our fleeting majorities to pass as much legislation as we can and the filibuster inhibits this” isn’t that difficult to understand.
Also, there is the little thing of how the Republican Party is radicalizing against majoritarian democracy and the only way to shore up the right to vote is with federal legislation that, hey, the filibuster makes impossible to pass.
Many people have written easily available and detailed arguments against the filibuster in its current form and it is probably worth reading them before pontificating on what filibuster opponents think.
right. and a 0 percent vacancy rate is the sign of a extremely unhealthy housing market, where demand greatly outstrips supply and people don’t ever move or change residences
also, if it were true, the homeless population and the unoccupied housing aren’t evenly and equally distributed. are we going to round up homeless people in norfolk and ship them six hours out to bristol and abingdon?
my wife chose KILL BILL, VOL. 1 for our movie tonight so that’s what’s on! i have not seen this since i was in high school
first thought: this movie is very bright and colorful compared to most modern action flicks!
yes! the highly choreographed brutality of the fighting in that scene is something we wouldn’t get in a major studio film again until, what, John Wick?
an annual household income of $400,000 puts one in the top 2 percent of households! no you aren’t a billionaire or multi-millionaire but that doesn’t mean you aren’t very affluent.