Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NolaAuTiger last won the day on October 27 2018

NolaAuTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,576 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think there is an overarching judicial ambivalence in matter's of voting rights. To the extent judicial action gives validation to the existence of "voter suppression," the results are sparse. A most recent example of one litigated issue of voter suppression is Husted v A. Philip Randolph Institute. Although the Court upheld the statute, the issue was whether it amounted to voter suppression such that it could be remedied judicially. In other words, that the Court ruled the way it does not foreclose whether the statute constituted "voter suppression." In other words, in the minds of many, the statute did constitute voter suppression, irrespective of judicial affirmation. Under the federal statute at issue (National Voter Registration Act), a regime is permitted in Ohio by which the state can essentially presume that a voter has moved, and accordingly purges the voter from the rolls, if they engage in no voting activity for six years, and if they fail to return a postcard to the state confirming their address.
  2. Just recently finished a west coast trip (LA to Medford). In my opinion, Monterey was by far the coolest place. You will have to visit the old canning company buildings when you're out there. Also visit Carmel. And for all that is good and just, you must eat some local chowder - washed down with a cold bloody mary.
  3. Can you substantiate the claims asserted in this link? These are conclusory allegations on their face. For example, what is the context behind the phrase “repeatedly attacked”? The links that are attached do not suffice. Admittedly, I only read four of them (and I’m happy to list the ones I read). I am assuming you took the time to examine each?
  4. The upside to that approach is that there wouldn’t be a person-based classification. Thus, at least in terms of the Equal Protection clause, it would be easier to pass Constitutional muster in that sense.
  5. As someone who also travels to NY for work (and vacation ), I disagree. People in NYC make POTUS look like an angel. We both know there is nothing - for the most part - but a**holes in NYC. To be honest it depends on where you are in the city lol. President Trump fits the mold, but there's no shortage of people who "exceed" him.
  6. President Trump won majority of the votes in Staten Island. Why would someone go to Manhattan and do that????? President Trump is from Queens. For the record, if you think President Trump is tough, you would not last a day in New York City.
  7. I hear you. It's even broader (much broader) than that!
  8. I have a few ideas on steps forward re gun control. Mental health is certainly one avenue, but I think the Due Process Clauses in the Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause, would pose extremely complexing issues. Another idea is, instead of regulations on individuals themselves, this: Assuming a plausible criteria could be developed, why not regulate "certain" guns (fitting the criteria) like formula one race-cars and monster trucks (I am strictly using these "things" for illustrative purposes)? What if the use of those "certain" guns was restricted for everyone in the same way? If I want to experience what its like to drive a race car or a monster truck, or even if I have driven one multiple times, I cannot just go purchase one and take it out on the road (let's ignore the price discrepancy). I can, however, go to a race-track and drive the car under professional supervision. Can we do the same things with "certain" guns? Attn: Not about Shotguns and Hunting Rifles.
  9. I am using the term "justify" loosely. You can read it as "make acceptable."
  10. For the sake of not being a pedant, the most honest and general answer I can give is "I still cannot outright choose one over the other." Assuming I believe Candidate B's policies will result in fewer abortion (per the parameters of your question), the persistent friction I would continue to encounter is my view that the ends do not necessarily justify the means. In other words, if I am forced - for purposes of the hypothetical - to think fewer abortions is a good thing, I could still reject Candidate B on the basis of means. In reality, I take more of a "federalism approach" to abortion.
  11. Holding: The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions. Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on February 27, 2019. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
  12. Let me clarify: (And I'll focus on Candidate A, with the hope that the liberals reading this might try to understand my take) When Candidate A promises to take measures to limit abortion rights through legislation and regulation, Candidate A is full of crap because such measures are not in the province of the office that he seeks to hold. Even if he could take such measures, abortion is a fundamental right (like it or not) under the much broader right to privacy. This means that any legislation limiting that right in general will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. When strict scrutiny applies, that's almost dispositive of invalidating the legislation. I can count on one hand how many pieces of legislation have survived that standard of review. Secondly, I detest assurances of appointing judges for the sole sake of "overturning a case for the political base." The highest Court is not a political chess board, nor should it be portrayed as one. Prioritize appointing judges who are faithful to the Constitution, and the laws enacted under its authority, not judges who are faithful to a political agenda. While Roe is an important case, I think the cases which have had the most direct impact on our daily lives are the ones that 95% of people have never heard of. To answer the question: I will confess that I have not, but I am trying to examine political assurances with more criticism moving forward, particularly assurances that come from the person who enjoys the highest office in the land - as well as assurances coming from candidates who seek that position as well. If I was truly faithful to this idea, I would have to vote for a third-party in every election moving forward. President Trump made the assurances referenced above. Every single democrat currently running for President has done similar (I.e., Harris "promising" she would repeal the tax act [on day one]; an unattainable and patently false assurance on its face because she would have no such authority).
  13. I would have to write-in a third candidate because neither A nor B would have the authority to actually fulfill their assurances.
  14. I blame the mayor. But really, more rats than people in NYC. I recall that watching them run around helps kill time when waiting on Subway. I personally just Uber in New York.