Stand your ground was not raised as a defense in the Zimmerman trial, but the jury was instructed that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground. So it is factually incorrect to say it played no role.
Bullshit. Libertarians have indeed been fighting civil asset forfeiture, alongside liberals who have been fighting it for longer, and who actually have political power unlike the libertarians. But Conservatives are, on the whole, the ones who they are fighting against. There are some exceptions. Philadelphia has terrible civil asset forfeiture laws being defended by a Democratic establishment. But in the bigger picture it is Conservative Republicans and their law and order rhetoric that keeps them in place in most jurisdictions.
Ditto no-knock raids, and other War on Drugs tactics. Radley Balko is a great example of the kind of advocate you’re talking about. He’s arguably a libertarian (as a journalist, I don’t think he’s ever disclosed his partisan affiliations), but he’s inarguably a social liberal fighting against social conservatives. He wants to legalize drugs and thinks people should be reading Ta-Nehisi Coates.
It’s playing on fear, which has a long and inglorious history of success in US politics. Some of the fear is rational – Republicans have shown no interest in tamping down on police violence against black people, and the huge disparities in our justice system.
Richard, I get that Democrats favor this stuff in theory, but it has never been a priority. Arguably Republicans have lately made it more of a priority than Democrats, which shouldn’t be surprising given the Republicans’ history on civil rights issues. The Democrats will do what they always do, jump on the bandwagon when it’s likely to pass and then claim they are the ones who made it happen.
If your argument is that the vast majority of Democratic politicians have never made criminal justice reform a central issue then I agree wholeheartedly. But it has been liberal activists who have kept those issues alive, and it is liberal and libertarian votes that the handful of reform-minded GOP politicians are trying to win.
Unfortunately, the national GOP is not going to pass any criminal justice reform. If a GOP-controlled House and Senate pass criminal justice reform approved by the likes of Radley Balko in the next decade–such as eliminating mandatory minimums for drug crimes–I hereby personally promise to vote an straight Republican ticket in the next election.
Until then, let’s watch Obama’s nomination of Vanita Gupta for head of the Civil Rights Division. She’s a criminal justice reformer. If the GOP broadly welcomes her (and I’m not ruling that out, there have been some encouraging signs), then I’ll reduce some of my skepticism over the newfound profession of concern over the criminal justice system.
It was. The jury was instructed that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and that he had the right to “stand his ground.” That’s part of what the law does. It can also be asserted as part of an affirmative defense or to attempt to dismiss the charge. And you’re right that it was not so asserted. But the jury was still instructed as to the Stand Your Ground law, and we have no way of knowing if they would have come out a different way if Zimmerman had a duty to retreat when possible.
I wouldn’t expect that much, but I’m gratified that you would consider the GOP if they did that. And I do think there’s an opportunity for movement. Especially since it’s precisely the new Republicans, the Tea Partiers, who are making this an issue. It’s the old-line Republicans who are primarily opposed. The Tea Partiers and liberals can work together on a lot of issues if the Tea Party matures.
I’m not particularly optimistic – I think it’s about 60-40 likely for the Republicans right now. But I’m quite hopeful about GA and CO, and I think AK might be the next most likely Democratic hold.
But I’m expecting the worst. If the Republicans take the Senate, the bright side is that they’ll probably be more likely to nominate a conservative wackadoodle in 2016.
I’ll be voting for the Dem candidates for Senate in Georgia next week, but without much hope that things will change much even if they win. The D in Dem stands for Disappointment to me.
I’m on the record of thinking that it is hard to go against history and I did agree with many pollsters that the chances were going to be better for the Republicans in the midterms, and they reported that the next day after the election of 2012.
Having say that, that there is a chance that Republicans will not take the senate tells me that even when history would tell you one thing there is something that the people is finally getting, the Republicans of today are not like the Republicans of a generation ago.
And even if they take the senate, scientifically speaking, they will not do much; as this opinion at the Nature Journal tell us:
So, I’m not panicking even if the senate is lost, but I do expect a lot of really retarded votes; again, this are not the Republicans of a generation ago.
Then you don’t understand the SYG law, which changes the standard of proof of self-defense, from (before SYG) preponderance of the evidence to (with SYG) the DA having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self-defense.
Police brutality is already against the law though. What we’re more concerned about is what’s legal, like taking people’s assets without trial, using SWAT teams for marijuana busts, and the “mission creep” of government agencies like Homeland Security enforcing trade laws or going after child porn. Even the Department of Education has used a SWAT team at least once over student loan fraud.
It is mainly a libertarian issue, but as libertarians are moving increasingly towards the Republicans it’s becoming an issue of interest among Republican Congressmen and think tanks. Whereas Democrats are becoming focused on issues very specific to their constituencies, something which I’ve long predicted would happen and will continue to be the primary influence on Democratic policies as demographics change. It all becomes about pleasing this or that constituency on very specific issues rather than having an overarching ideological goals. Police brutality is a great example of that, because it’s a very specific aspect of a larger problem: the arrogance of government authorities. That’s the root cause that has to be addressed.
If Democrats want to turn Texas blue, they’ll have to start winning the Texas Hispanic vote a little more consistently. Abbott currently trails Davis among Hispanics by only two points:
Heh. Mark Begich says the President is “not relevant” because “he’s gone in two years”. White House rebuts him:
The President said, “Do what you need to do”, but he sure isn’t making it easy for them. Meanwhile, apparently Harry Reid is gone as Dem leader no matter what because none of the embattled Democrats are willing to endorse his reelection.
Republican odds at 538 took a fairly big jump yesterday, and now stand at 68.5%. Again, I don’t know if this represents new polling or just time running out.
Not that I’ve ever heard of. I’ve never seen “Stop Police Brutality!” or anything similar on their rally-signs or in their literature.