Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett) (5 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[MT15]

So, what I was looking for was proof of your claim that it was broadly common all over the country. That there were all these Democratic prosecutors who were doing the same thing. You haven’t backed that claim up at all.

And 2 of your sources are pretty biased, actually. I’m not reading them.

The third one actually includes his reasoning: (emphasis mine)

“Gascon's memo notes that a high percentage of people arrested for minor crimes suffer from mental illness, substance abuse or homelessness.

"Los Angeles County courts should not be revolving doors for those in need of treatment and services," Gascon wrote

"Currently, over 47% of those incarcerated pre-trial on misdemeanor cases suffer from mental illness. Likewise, nearly 60% of those released each day have a significant substance use disorder. Meanwhile, individuals experiencing homelessness account for almost 20% of arrests in Los Angeles despite comprising only 1.7% of the population. The status quo has exacerbated social ills and encouraged recidivism at great public expense."”

It appears he is trying to follow the literature that suggests we can reduce the prison population by not incarcerating people who are mentally ill and not violent. The US has an obscenely high incarceration rate compared to other affluent nations. Studies have shown that imprisoning people for minor crimes doesn’t help, and most likely hurts both society and the people themselves.

The fourth article is long, but once you get past the first case, and I don’t agree with Gascon on that one, what he is trying to do is break the school to prison pipeline. It’s a deep, nuanced subject, and it will be years before we can tell if it is working. The alternative, keep doing what we’ve been doing for many decades will just keep the prisons full and make money for the prison corporations. At least Gascon is trying to break the cycle and improve public safety.

 

[Farb]

So, what I was looking for was proof of your claim that it was broadly common all over the country. That there were all these Democratic prosecutors who were doing the same thing. You haven’t backed that claim up at all.

And 2 of your sources are pretty biased, actually. I’m not reading them.

The third one actually includes his reasoning: (emphasis mine)

“Gascon's memo notes that a high percentage of people arrested for minor crimes suffer from mental illness, substance abuse or homelessness.

"Los Angeles County courts should not be revolving doors for those in need of treatment and services," Gascon wrote

"Currently, over 47% of those incarcerated pre-trial on misdemeanor cases suffer from mental illness. Likewise, nearly 60% of those released each day have a significant substance use disorder. Meanwhile, individuals experiencing homelessness account for almost 20% of arrests in Los Angeles despite comprising only 1.7% of the population. The status quo has exacerbated social ills and encouraged recidivism at great public expense."”

It appears he is trying to follow the literature that suggests we can reduce the prison population by not incarcerating people who are mentally ill and not violent. The US has an obscenely high incarceration rate compared to other affluent nations. Studies have shown that imprisoning people for minor crimes doesn’t help, and most likely hurts both society and the people themselves.

The fourth article is long, but once you get past the first case, and I don’t agree with Gascon on that one, what he is trying to do is break the school to prison pipeline. It’s a deep, nuanced subject, and it will be years before we can tell if it is working. The alternative, keep doing what we’ve been doing for many decades will just keep the prisons full and make money for the prison corporations. At least Gascon is trying to break the cycle and improve public safety.

Yeah, nothing improves public safety like creating a turnstile for violent criminals. Works so well, people are fleeing and there was recall push as well.

If the voters there want to try and implement his rainbow and unicorn plan, go ahead. The rest of the country will watch and take notes on what not to do.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, nothing improves public safety like creating a turnstile for violent criminals. Works so well, people are fleeing and there was recall push as well.

If the voters there want to try and implement his rainbow and unicorn plan, go ahead. The rest of the country will watch and take notes on what not to do.

So “not violent” sailed over you? I’m fine with incarcerating people who are violent, especially unprovoked.

What is happening, and has been happening for decades, is that the US is throwing non-violent people into penitentiary with violent criminals. That’s not a good idea, unless you run a for-profit prison or take campaign money from those who do. I’m fine with trying another way. But to pretend this is happening everywhere in the US was wrong. And to pretend it’s some kind of “democratic” conspiracy is wrong. Wrong on your part, evil and calculating on those people who you read and believe about this stuff.

 

[Port City JJ]

Yeah, nothing improves public safety like creating a turnstile for violent criminals. Works so well, people are fleeing and there was recall push as well.

If the voters there want to try and implement his rainbow and unicorn plan, go ahead. The rest of the country will watch and take notes on what not to do.

 

[Farb]

 

[superchuck500]

We had an interesting exchange the other day on ACB in another thread - I think it's a good discussion but it's better to continue it here.

This is an excellent presentation of her current position on the Court and with the MAGA world:

So why is the right so angry with her? Because they don’t want to lose. Barrett’s emphasis on methodological rigor and her aversion to cutting procedural corners would have been lauded by a previous generation of conservative legal thinkers. As things currently stand, that scrupulousness is an impediment to their ideological goals. They expect the six-justice conservative majority to endorse most, if not all, of what they want to do to civil servants, to immigrants, to transgender Americans, to universities, to blue states, and so on.

. . .

Ironically, Barrett almost certainly sits on the Supreme Court because of that defining MAGA impulse to humiliate their political opponents. In trying to own the libs by elevating her, however, they deviated from their usual practices and are now paying the price for it. It would be a mistake to describe Barrett as a swing vote, since that usually denotes some sort of ideological moderation. But her willingness to take her fellow conservatives to task for their sloppiness and their shortcuts may be just as influential over the next four years.

Amy Coney Barrett Isn’t What the Conservative Legal Movement Expected

The Supreme Court’s second-newest justice is proving herself to be a non-hack—to the increasing consternation of MAGA.

newrepublic.com