IMO reduce that crap to rubble because it's trash. Also we have history books that can tell us what happened, we don't need a bunch of garbage pro-Confederate artifacts to tell us what happened, hell most of the garbage pro-Confederate are intended to tell incorrect information about what happened. I mean, we tore down all the statues to the British monarchy after the Revolutionary War and no one is wringing their hands exclaiming, "but how will people know what happened if we tear down these statues! People might forget that we were a British colony that successfully rebelled against the crown!"
Also probably anywhere for a day to a week out hearing the fate of the state owned monument to the traitor general. Herring argued it should go because it was always intended to be a divisive monument to white supremacy and is a piece of propaganda for the lost cause, which was all about treason. Then there is the whole thing about how the person that filed for the original injunction has no standing. Can't remember if he touched on the idiocy of "but if they take it down we lose a tax break!" I'd argue those guys have no standing either because I'm pretty sure the tax break is more contingent on on them living in monument avenue than the statue being left up. Really should kill such tax breaks and it's probably a flimsy shield and most of that group is butthurt that they are losing their racist monument.
They don't know who owns the statue in my city. I feel like after over 100 years that doesn't count anymore
After the Leesburg Town Council voted unanimously to take down the confederate statue in front of the Loudoun County Courthouse, the Daughters of the Confederacy (who paid to put it up in 1908) had it removed. It's not quite as satisfying as tossing it in a lake, but I bet they'd take possession of it if your city is worried about that.
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
really the idea that you can erect a privately-owned statue in a public space, and the make it illegal to remove it, is just so absolutely absurd i can't understand how it would hold up in court at all if the courts just didn't happen to be full of confederate sympathizers
The statue was paid for by some random veterans in 1900, so maybe nobody owns it now? The land the statue is on is leased by the city to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Association so idk it makes sense for it to be legally confusing. Several years ago somebody tried to change the seal but it failed, and trying to change the name of Jubal Early Drive also failed last month so I don't how committed they are. Shenandoah University changed the name of their Harry Byrd building though lol
The Robert E. Lee memorial in Roanoke was knocked over mysteriously a couple nights ago and broke in two. We were scheduled to hold a public hearing on its removal in August, but I'm glad it came down early instead, and in the manner it did. We've still got a lot of very loud voices holding on to rebel causes.
I'd need to track down the exact name of what the pro-statue assholes are trying to use. I thought it was indefinite propriety, but neither bing or google seem to help. Essentially, what they are trying to argue is that descendants of the original jackass that paid for the statue have indefinite say over what happens to said statue. It's actually a concept that is heavily frowned upon in legal circles and often gets obliterates IIRC when someone tries it. It's pretty bullshit.
Actually the more bunkers things and another reason why Caveto is a giant piece of shit, is that someone filled an anonymous claim against the City of Richmond before they could remove one of their last confederate monuments, don't think this one was on monument avenue. It's bunkers because it should have been thrown out when it was apparent that the claimant was anonymous because that interferes with the ability to determine if they have legitimate standing, but Caveto being the craven racist piece of shit that he is, allowed for an injunction. Funnily enough he has also recused himself from that case to because apparently he has a conflict of interest.
really the idea that you can erect a privately-owned statue in a public space, and the make it illegal to remove it, is just so absolutely absurd i can't understand how it would hold up in court at all if the courts just didn't happen to be full of confederate sympathizers
Church of satan has been doing this for a while with some great statues whenever a new ten commandments monument goes up and the local govt declares 'its ok because taxes didnt pay for it!'
The Robert E. Lee memorial in Roanoke was knocked over mysteriously a couple nights ago and broke in two. We were scheduled to hold a public hearing on its removal in August, but I'm glad it came down early instead, and in the manner it did. We've still got a lot of very loud voices holding on to rebel causes.
Have you ever seen it? I went looking for it twice and couldn't find it. Glad its gone either way. The last time there was issues around those kinds of statues/monuments, it sounded like the city was in favor of removing and was just waiting for people to ask?
The Robert E. Lee memorial in Roanoke was knocked over mysteriously a couple nights ago and broke in two. We were scheduled to hold a public hearing on its removal in August, but I'm glad it came down early instead, and in the manner it did. We've still got a lot of very loud voices holding on to rebel causes.
Have you ever seen it? I went looking for it twice and couldn't find it. Glad its gone either way. The last time there was issues around those kinds of statues/monuments, it sounded like the city was in favor of removing and was just waiting for people to ask?
Yeah, it was kinda tucked in to that plaza/war memorial area, and it just looked like an obelisk. Nothing appeared representative of Lee except the name of the plaza and the plaque and stuff. I'm also glad it's gone either way. I know city council has been in favor of removing it, but like you said, it wasn't being called for enough.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Friday that the state’s Supreme Court granted his request to extend a halt on evictions through Sept. 7 as tenants struggle to pay rent amid a slumping economy and diminished federal assistance.
“As the ongoing Congressional stalemate leaves Virginians without federal housing protection, this is a critical step towards keeping families safely in their homes,” Northam wrote on Twitter.
An earlier moratorium of evictions expired in June, and Northam had encouraged local courts to decide whether or not to extend the pause. On July 24, he urged Virginia Chief Justice Donald Lemons to suspend eviction proceedings, saying it would give his administration time to develop new laws to prevent evictions when lawmakers meet in an August 18 special session.
So this is good news. It is short but with the Dems controlling all of the branches I feel confident that the Assembly and the Governor can put something more permanent in place this month.
If anyone hasn't heard yet, apparently VA is the first state to roll out a COVID exposure notification app. It's called COVIDWISE and it should be on Apple and Google app stores.
Wish there was a nationwide version, but state is better than nothing, I guess.
+4
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
it's kind of neat the way it works anonymously
it basically just shits out little encrypted keys which get picked up by other people with the app and then if you flag yourself as positive any app that has one of your keys knows it was in contact with you
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+3
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Yeah, I installed it on my phone. I figure I have a good chance of being near someone with COVID since I work with the public.
A state senator is arrested for conspiracy to destroy confederate monuments, who was arrested 8 hours before damage was done, and now 12 hours before she was going to speak in richmond about police problems, has a warrant issued for an event that took place 3 months ago:
The arrests included other politicians, and leaders of the NAACP for the area. Totally not retaliatory though. Cops had to bypass the city attourney to get the warrants, but its totally not abuse. nope.
In good news, Roanoke voted unanimously to remove the Lee monument, that had been already knocked down and removed. I'm awaiting the very vocal dude who said it had to go back up until it was voted down, to declare that its not fair and should go back up because he has lost track of reality.
In good news, Roanoke voted unanimously to remove the Lee monument, that had been already knocked down and removed. I'm awaiting the very vocal dude who said it had to go back up until it was voted down, to declare that its not fair and should go back up because he has lost track of reality.
That must be the guy in the Roanoke Times comment section that looks like he just turned on text to speech and started yelling at his TV.
I'm curious on the specifics with them bypassing the city attorneys. I'd think if the city attorneys didn't want to bring this case, then it's dead in the water since the PD shouldn't have the authority to prosecute. It would be nice if we had a case of DAs not being scum and telling the cops to eat shit on their abuse of authority.
I'm curious on the specifics with them bypassing the city attorneys. I'd think if the city attorneys didn't want to bring this case, then it's dead in the water since the PD shouldn't have the authority to prosecute. It would be nice if we had a case of DAs not being scum and telling the cops to eat shit on their abuse of authority.
I mean, since when has law enforcement given a shit about law or ethics?
My mistake, I misinterpreted someones misinterpretation. The cops tried to get the commonwealth attorney to escalate the investigation but didnt yield any results. More specific here from politico's story:
Claire G. Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said Virginia is one of the few states in which a felony warrant can be filed without a prosecutor's approval.
“These charges are political, and I think they're discriminatory,” she said.
“The police department is making decisions about who should be charged in a circumstance in which the elected (prosecutor) is being bypassed,” Gastañaga added. “The police want a different result” and that is alarming.
Virginia lawmakers advanced a bill Monday to allocate $2 million to the upcoming general election, with Democrats in the majority voting to allow ballot drop boxes and third-party ballot collection while Republicans expressed skepticism over vote security.
“No one should have to risk his or her life in order to exercise their franchise in this state,” said Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston), chair of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee and chief patron of the legislation.
The senate bill would refund local voting offices for providing prepaid postage for absentee ballots. It would also allow absentee ballots to be returned by mail or in person to local registrar offices or to designated drop-off locations, like ballot drop boxes. (D.C. and Maryland will have drop boxes for the election.) The bill would also permit ballots to be sent by commercial delivery service.
Again, elections consequences and so on.
+16
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
As an aside, Janet Howell is the hero who proposed a bill requiring men to undergo a rectal examination in order to get a prescription for Viagra back during the McDonnell administration.
RICHMOND — The Supreme Court of Virginia has thrown out a lower court's injunction that stopped the city from removing Confederate statues, handing a victory to Mayor Levar Stoney and his aggressive campaign to take down monuments.
The court ruled Wednesday that the anonymous resident who challenged Stoney’s actions had no legal standing to file suit under a new state law that took effect July 1.
“Because Anonymous failed to allege a potentially viable right of action, he or she was not entitled to a temporary injunction,” six of the court’s seven justices wrote. “The circuit court abused its discretion in determining otherwise, and we vacate the temporary injunction.”
One justice did not take part in the case for undisclosed reasons.
Circuit Court Judge Bradley B. Cavedo had issued the 60-day injunction last month after granting the plaintiff anonymity in a lawsuit challenging Stoney’s actions. The mayor defied the advice of the acting city attorney July 1 when he ordered work crews to take down a statue of Stonewall Jackson on city property along Monument Avenue.
If it’s “have voted” that’s good, but really you’d want to see like 50% there because of the “requested absentee ballot” part (shooting for 70%+ turnout) right?
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I'm curious on the specifics with them bypassing the city attorneys. I'd think if the city attorneys didn't want to bring this case, then it's dead in the water since the PD shouldn't have the authority to prosecute. It would be nice if we had a case of DAs not being scum and telling the cops to eat shit on their abuse of authority.
I mean, since when has law enforcement given a shit about law or ethics?
Usually the DA will not bring a case that doesn’t have enough evidence or that they know the judge won’t sign off on.
And another reason if you are ever detained or arrested ask for an attorney. Even as simply as hey these questions are serious I’d like to have an attorney here. And they may try to interrupt that because they have a bag of tricks to keep someone from invoking their constitutional right, but keep at it till you say you want a lawyer.
If the police have nothing usually or minimal evidence the DA will often not want to deal with that dog shit.
zepherin on
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Hey now that this thread is bumped, what's the deal with the redistricting amendment? Fucking LaRock supports it, but he could be right by accident
in a perfect world it would be a decent attempt to undo gerrymandering but in the real world it gives a lot of power to Republicans to keep drawing the maps
the plan is basically a bipartisan commission draws a map, it gets an up or down vote
if the legislature can't approve a map, it goes to the courts
the problem is the Virginia courts are also packed full of conservative Republican appointees, so the potential is there to end up with only Republican approved maps
a few Democrats support it but most voted against approving the amendment
-One some of the commissions members are going to be members of the legislator. So there is a conflict of interest here and the first fix to gerrymandering is getting the elected people the fuck out of the process of deciding where voters go because most aren't going to want new constituents that might not want to vote for them or don't.
-It only takes two members of a chamber to kill the maps. So this gives a ton of power to the minority party to kill maps that they don't like. A bad faith minority is going to kill any map that doesn't give them outsized influence.
-Bipartisan is left to the discretion of the party leaders. AKA they get to decide who is non-partisan, so they could in theory pick someone that was formerly registered to the party the day before the committees members were to be announced and then claim, since they aren't registered to a party, they are a non-partisan. Seems like hyperbole, but looking at the shit show that is the modern GOP, yeah, some fucker will try that given the chance. That aside, plenty of places for fuckery, where non-partisan members are clearly partisan, but leadership has the final say on whether they are partisan or not because their is no fucking definition for what qualifies as no partisan.
-If the committee doesn't come up with a map that everyone likes, then the VA Supreme court itself draws up the map. Note they aren't selecting a committee to do it for them. There are some problems with this. One, they are picked by the legislator, so you could get fuckery where corrupt judges make sure there polls in the state legislature get favorable maps, so that they and their buddies continue to be judges and get other favorable deals. Two, this is the VA Supreme Court drawing up the lines, so you no longer have recourse to sue the state supreme court in the VA court system if you feel the maps violate your rights because they'd be the defendant. So if the offense is a non-racial gerrymander based on partisanship, well you're fucked because you can't use the state court system and as long as fucking pig republicans control the federal courts, you can't challenge BS partisan gerrymandering there either. This assumes the pigs don't decide that racial gerrymandering is constitutional later on.
It's a real shit amendment because it doesn't fix the core issues that allow gerrymandering, rather it empowers them further. Any good anti-gerrymander amendment starts by keeping the elected people off the committee that draws the lines, doesn't let two of the fuckers veto it and doesn't rig the system so that the arbiter at the end, who is chosen by the elected officials, is the one drawing the maps if all else fails and able to go "lolololololololol, I'm the final court fucker, you can't sue me!"
It's very frustrating because a non-partisan commission would be very good for the health of the state. But of course the Republicans put in a poisoned pill.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote doesn't even mean anything, because it has to meet the approval of two successive sessions of the Assembly? Every redistricting reform attempt has died previously, so this couldn't go into effect until 2022 anyway, after the deadline for submitting new maps.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote doesn't even mean anything, because it has to meet the approval of two successive sessions of the Assembly? Every redistricting reform attempt has died previously, so this couldn't go into effect until 2022 anyway, after the deadline for submitting new maps.
the second vote was this year
it's an amendment on the ballot now
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote doesn't even mean anything, because it has to meet the approval of two successive sessions of the Assembly? Every redistricting reform attempt has died previously, so this couldn't go into effect until 2022 anyway, after the deadline for submitting new maps.
the second vote was this year
it's an amendment on the ballot now
Then get the word out to vote the amendment down.
Why did the Democrats for this shit sandwich?
zepherin on
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote doesn't even mean anything, because it has to meet the approval of two successive sessions of the Assembly? Every redistricting reform attempt has died previously, so this couldn't go into effect until 2022 anyway, after the deadline for submitting new maps.
the second vote was this year
it's an amendment on the ballot now
Then get the word out to vote the amendment down.
Why did the Democrats for this shit sandwich?
46 voted against it and have been making noise about how it's bad but it's really easy to paint them as having no principles and standing up for a rigged system
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote doesn't even mean anything, because it has to meet the approval of two successive sessions of the Assembly? Every redistricting reform attempt has died previously, so this couldn't go into effect until 2022 anyway, after the deadline for submitting new maps.
the second vote was this year
it's an amendment on the ballot now
Then get the word out to vote the amendment down.
Why did the Democrats for this shit sandwich?
46 voted against it and have been making noise about how it's bad but it's really easy to paint them as having no principles and standing up for a rigged system
God are we that dumb, because it’s just let’s allow the republicans to gerrymander it through the courts. Virginia Supreme Court is 4/3 republican appointees.
zepherin on
+1
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Yeah, I voted against the amendment today and the Fairfax Democrats had their recommended ballot out on display which said to vote no.
Posts
Also probably anywhere for a day to a week out hearing the fate of the state owned monument to the traitor general. Herring argued it should go because it was always intended to be a divisive monument to white supremacy and is a piece of propaganda for the lost cause, which was all about treason. Then there is the whole thing about how the person that filed for the original injunction has no standing. Can't remember if he touched on the idiocy of "but if they take it down we lose a tax break!" I'd argue those guys have no standing either because I'm pretty sure the tax break is more contingent on on them living in monument avenue than the statue being left up. Really should kill such tax breaks and it's probably a flimsy shield and most of that group is butthurt that they are losing their racist monument.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Actually the more bunkers things and another reason why Caveto is a giant piece of shit, is that someone filled an anonymous claim against the City of Richmond before they could remove one of their last confederate monuments, don't think this one was on monument avenue. It's bunkers because it should have been thrown out when it was apparent that the claimant was anonymous because that interferes with the ability to determine if they have legitimate standing, but Caveto being the craven racist piece of shit that he is, allowed for an injunction. Funnily enough he has also recused himself from that case to because apparently he has a conflict of interest.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Church of satan has been doing this for a while with some great statues whenever a new ten commandments monument goes up and the local govt declares 'its ok because taxes didnt pay for it!'
Have you ever seen it? I went looking for it twice and couldn't find it. Glad its gone either way. The last time there was issues around those kinds of statues/monuments, it sounded like the city was in favor of removing and was just waiting for people to ask?
Yeah, it was kinda tucked in to that plaza/war memorial area, and it just looked like an obelisk. Nothing appeared representative of Lee except the name of the plaza and the plaque and stuff. I'm also glad it's gone either way. I know city council has been in favor of removing it, but like you said, it wasn't being called for enough.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So this is good news. It is short but with the Dems controlling all of the branches I feel confident that the Assembly and the Governor can put something more permanent in place this month.
Wish there was a nationwide version, but state is better than nothing, I guess.
it basically just shits out little encrypted keys which get picked up by other people with the app and then if you flag yourself as positive any app that has one of your keys knows it was in contact with you
My Backloggery
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-sen-l-louise-lucas-charged-with-felonies-over-portsmouth-confederate-monument-protest/2020/08/17/84fd4bf6-e0c8-11ea-8181-606e603bb1c4_story.html
The arrests included other politicians, and leaders of the NAACP for the area. Totally not retaliatory though. Cops had to bypass the city attourney to get the warrants, but its totally not abuse. nope.
In good news, Roanoke voted unanimously to remove the Lee monument, that had been already knocked down and removed. I'm awaiting the very vocal dude who said it had to go back up until it was voted down, to declare that its not fair and should go back up because he has lost track of reality.
That must be the guy in the Roanoke Times comment section that looks like he just turned on text to speech and started yelling at his TV.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I mean, since when has law enforcement given a shit about law or ethics?
Again, elections consequences and so on.
Keep removing all the traitors.
1 million of Virginia's 5.8 million registered voters have already voted or requested absentee ballots
And another reason if you are ever detained or arrested ask for an attorney. Even as simply as hey these questions are serious I’d like to have an attorney here. And they may try to interrupt that because they have a bag of tricks to keep someone from invoking their constitutional right, but keep at it till you say you want a lawyer.
If the police have nothing usually or minimal evidence the DA will often not want to deal with that dog shit.
in a perfect world it would be a decent attempt to undo gerrymandering but in the real world it gives a lot of power to Republicans to keep drawing the maps
the plan is basically a bipartisan commission draws a map, it gets an up or down vote
if the legislature can't approve a map, it goes to the courts
the problem is the Virginia courts are also packed full of conservative Republican appointees, so the potential is there to end up with only Republican approved maps
a few Democrats support it but most voted against approving the amendment
it's sad because it would be if everything around it weren't already messed up
-One some of the commissions members are going to be members of the legislator. So there is a conflict of interest here and the first fix to gerrymandering is getting the elected people the fuck out of the process of deciding where voters go because most aren't going to want new constituents that might not want to vote for them or don't.
-It only takes two members of a chamber to kill the maps. So this gives a ton of power to the minority party to kill maps that they don't like. A bad faith minority is going to kill any map that doesn't give them outsized influence.
-Bipartisan is left to the discretion of the party leaders. AKA they get to decide who is non-partisan, so they could in theory pick someone that was formerly registered to the party the day before the committees members were to be announced and then claim, since they aren't registered to a party, they are a non-partisan. Seems like hyperbole, but looking at the shit show that is the modern GOP, yeah, some fucker will try that given the chance. That aside, plenty of places for fuckery, where non-partisan members are clearly partisan, but leadership has the final say on whether they are partisan or not because their is no fucking definition for what qualifies as no partisan.
-If the committee doesn't come up with a map that everyone likes, then the VA Supreme court itself draws up the map. Note they aren't selecting a committee to do it for them. There are some problems with this. One, they are picked by the legislator, so you could get fuckery where corrupt judges make sure there polls in the state legislature get favorable maps, so that they and their buddies continue to be judges and get other favorable deals. Two, this is the VA Supreme Court drawing up the lines, so you no longer have recourse to sue the state supreme court in the VA court system if you feel the maps violate your rights because they'd be the defendant. So if the offense is a non-racial gerrymander based on partisanship, well you're fucked because you can't use the state court system and as long as fucking pig republicans control the federal courts, you can't challenge BS partisan gerrymandering there either. This assumes the pigs don't decide that racial gerrymandering is constitutional later on.
It's a real shit amendment because it doesn't fix the core issues that allow gerrymandering, rather it empowers them further. Any good anti-gerrymander amendment starts by keeping the elected people off the committee that draws the lines, doesn't let two of the fuckers veto it and doesn't rig the system so that the arbiter at the end, who is chosen by the elected officials, is the one drawing the maps if all else fails and able to go "lolololololololol, I'm the final court fucker, you can't sue me!"
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
the second vote was this year
it's an amendment on the ballot now
Why did the Democrats for this shit sandwich?
46 voted against it and have been making noise about how it's bad but it's really easy to paint them as having no principles and standing up for a rigged system
My Backloggery
e: totp robs some context - i'm not sure how i feel about the wording. i am sure the amendment is bad