UsNews and World Report - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for UsNews and World Report:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this effectively mean that Utah lawmakers are asking voters to give them the power to ignore voters?
From the article:
Democrats decried the decision as a “power grab,” while Republicans argued it would be dangerous to have certain laws on the books that cannot be substantially changed. The proposal would let lawmakers apply their new power to initiatives from past election cycles.
Seriously, WTF?
There’s so much to unpack in just two sentences.
Yup, and their only answer to the question of “what if this is abused” is “voters can still vote the representatives out if they do wrong”.
Leaving silent the fact that the Utah supreme court just ruled that they did change/ignore voters choice in redistricting (total fucking gerrymandering).
So. “It’s the law, so it’s moral” is essentially what their end goal is, without mentioning that they would have near infinite power to make and pass any law they want.
That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on reproductive health and weed.
Way to rule instead of represent.
That seems like an easy way to ignore your constituency’s thoughts on
reproductive health and weed.anything.
There would literally be no reason for ballot initiatives at all any more. And who’s to say that Utah wouldn’t try to say this applies to elections too? “Republicans argued it would be dangerous to have certain people elected to government that cannot be substantially controlled.”
And remember. This Supreme Court.
Remember, there was a time when only white male landowners could vote. Senators weren’t elected. The VP was whoever was 2nd place in the Presidential race. There would be nothing stopping this supreme court from using this law to take us right back there if not even further back under the guise of “constitutional originalism” or whatever flimsy justification they use. Could be considered too dangerous. And if those pesky things like “laws” are too dangerous for Republicans, let me tell you about brown people. Or black people. Or Democrats. Sit down, lady. Yes, you. The Utah government has just decided that women voting is just too dangerous, so since you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t matter any more.
And since this bill is designed to be retroactive, what’s to stop them from doing something like this:
- Bill: “This bill would make marijuana legal.”
- Voters: “OK!”
- Legislators: Thanks for passing this! But it’s too dangerous. New version: “This bill would make marijuana
legalpunishable by a 10 year minimum prison sentence.” Now go round 'em up, boys! The voters voted for it! 10 year prison sentences for everybody!
“The party of small government.”
Yup, and their only answer to the question of “what if this is abused” is “voters can still vote the representatives out if they do wrong”.
Of course. I’m sure a senator voting for something like this in 2024 would be quaking in his boots over the punishment of maybe facing a primary challenge in 2030. That’ll sure scare 'em.
Nobody says what voters should do about the six god damned years in between that they have to suffer under it.
They literally already do this. When I lived there, medical marijuana was a ballot initiative. It passed with flying colors, but then the legislature kneecapped the entire bill, basically rewriting it from scratch to make the church happy.
