A quick look at top stories this hour:
- Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to ‘one person, one vote’ (WashPost) — For all of you who paid attention in school, this is what we used to call “one man, one vote.” So, way important. A side note: As long as the Court is willing to rule unanimously, as they did on this, I guess maybe replacing Scalia isn’t as urgent. Yes, my tongue is in my cheek, but it’s nice to see them not splitting into the liberal/conservative camps. Gives one hope and all that.
- The Panama Papers (WSJ) — These are generating a huge reaction elsewhere in the world — they’re chanting in the streets in Iceland demanding the resignation of their PM — but not making much of a splash here., except perhaps among the “feel the Bern,” “the whole world is rigged by billionaires” crowd.
- Database would track refugees in South Carolina if passed (The State) — Yeah, this is the same bill that would penalize sponsors for having done the Christian thing in helping desperate people find refuge — if any of them turn out to be bad guys. The ill will in that provision is just staggering.
- Princeton Will Keep Woodrow Wilson’s Name On School Buildings (NPR) — Apparently because, you know, his legacy is complicated. You know what? Read The Washington Post‘s story instead; it’s a little clearer. I suspect all the news people had a hard time grabbing ahold of this story firmly because the university’s tiptoeing statement was so bewilderingly oblique…
- Double Agent Kim Philby’s Credo: ‘Deny Everything’ (NYT) — Something fun for those of you who, like me, are into spy stuff. For the mix.
- Transcript of Woodward and Costa’s interview with Trump — A trip through the mind of the GOP front-runner. (First the editorial board meeting, now this. The Post certainly is getting some serious access to Trump…)
Bob Woodward talks about interview with Trump.
Related Posts
I think we should go back to having to own property or at least pay taxes to vote. But then I’m also for going back onto the gold standard.
Not back to “Might Makes Right”? Whether by weapon or by wallet?
What if we made the threshold to vote Personal Net Assets of > $25 million? Or $100 million? Or maybe an even 1 billion dollars? Or how about just a paltry $1 million even? How many citizens of SC could meet any of those property tests? How many voters would we have? Or would we instead have a feudal system of lords and serfs?
I take from your comment, Howard, that you feel you yourself are most assuredly entitled to vote. I wonder if others would agree with that supposition under the voting standard you propose… What would you say when you find yourself outside the castle wall?
Mark, you got all that from Howard’s two sentence comment?
I’m not sure the SCOTUS ruling is a very big deal overall. Seems like they basically said states are free to do what they want to.
This is mostly the status quo with drawing Congressional districts, no?
Perhaps so.
I get the feeling this was a WAY out of left field (or perhaps I should say right field) attempt to make a change, which would account for the unanimous ruling…
Yes, this was indeed way out of right field. It was a brazen attempt to redraw the political landscape by discounting the interests of millions of people.
Just to argue the other side of the coin (as I do from time to time) I can see the logical argument that “one person, one vote” means that congressional districts should have equal numbers of eligible voters, rather than simply equal numbers of people. After all, the whole idea of a congressional district is to come up with an area of land in which voters will all vote together to elect a Congressman.
If you aren’t eligible to vote, then you aren’t really part of the whole voting process, are you?
Having said all that, I think we would all agree that the issue with congressional districts of how you count the number of people (by whatever method) pales in comparison to where you draw the lines to make seats into “safe” seats for each party.
If we fixed the problem with how the lines are drawn, the issue of counting people would largely be a non-issue, in my opinion.
I was hoping one of the Justices would have mentioned this factoid…
Probably the Panama Papers are not making much splash here because A) many Americans may think, “what else is new?” , B) many Americans believe that it’s OK to rig economic systems because the wealthy have a moral right to do so, C) so far most of the stories seem to have to do with foreign leaders, D) much of the reporting is telling us Putin is a crook, which we also already knew, and E) we can have confidence that in the US any grotesque manipulation of markets will be fully exposed and will be subject to the full weight of our criminal justice system, as proven by how many were sent to jail in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse. Oops, scratch that last sentence.
Phillip, I’ll add another one. This is so new most of us aren’t sufficiently knowledgable yet to be able to intelligently comment. At least that’s my excuse. My first observation is simply this: plutocrats will be plutocrats.
Penny tax for roads money wasted… now we hear that hospitality tax dollars were misspent as well.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article69934947.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter
Common link? Both backed strongly by Mayor Benjamin. It’s nice to have a pool of other people’s money to throw around for your own political gain.
#3: ”My“ state senator, Kevin Bryant, a self-described “born again Christian,” has been leading this effort. When I wrote to him to say how little I thought of his bill, he replied with “Our intentions are to make SC unwelcome for any potential terrorist. ISIS has promised they will infiltrate Obama’s Refugee program and we have an obligation to keep SC safe.”
And the Confederacy of Dunces marches on.