Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
That is exactly what I'm saying too. The studies have to start with, e.g., 3000 kids in a system whose parents request vouchers. Then, pick 1500 to receive and 1500 to not receive. Randomly, not based on poverty etc....

Then measure progress.

Guess which studies do not appear to be based on such a methodology?

Hint: All of em.

So what you and Ty are saying is that there is really no way of proving whether vouchers are/will be effective*. If that is true, then it also cannot be shown that they are not effective or that they have an adverse affect on public schools, which proves my point even further because it removes all rational opposition to the program. Thus, vouchers become purely a question of parental choice.

*I do not agree with this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
S_A_M has answered that "unprecedented" stuff, I think. Maybe you weren't paying attention to what the GOP Senate did to Clinton's nominees.

To simplify, I'll accept that Republicans sidetracked people Clinton nominated because they were seen as crossing some line the Republicans were using.
The articles point isn't that the Dems are doing this. The guy's point is that a nominated black man with the identical background as a nominated white guy would get a harder time. At best the Dem's are drawing 2 lines and applying a stricter standard for minorities.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The guy's point is that a nominated black man with the identical background as a nominated white guy would get a harder time. At best the Dem's are drawing 2 lines and applying a stricter standard for minorities.

On what evidence? Look at the people blocked by Dems:

Miguel Estrada
Janice Rogers Brown
Bill Pryor
Charles Pickering
Priscilla Owens

Only two are ethnic minorities. Other minorities have gone through. Pickering aside, the thing the other four share is that they appear to be ideologues.

Who's the white guy in Estrada's position who's gone through?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So what you and Ty are saying is that there is really no way of proving whether vouchers are/will be effective*. If that is true, then it also cannot be shown that they are not effective or that they have an adverse affect on public schools, which proves my point even further because it removes all rational opposition to the program. Thus, vouchers become purely a question of parental choice.

*I do not agree with this.

Not at all. I've said exactly what is needed to baseline a study. Believe me, my heart is with your position, and I'd be shocked if progress weren't shown.

But the studies so far have been interpreted against vouchers, mainly by entrenched educational departments at marxist universities. And their ilk. Which is how we get to conclusions like the one aV originally presented, which I noted is a meaningless conclusion.

Its like saying that, a year after transferring to a private school with a voucher, Joey is not performing in line with the kids in [the suburbs] or [Exeter/Andover/St. whatever] or [any arbitrary, non normalized control group]. Thank them for nuthin.

The normalized studies can be done, and they will, I'm sure, in time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
On what evidence? Look at the people blocked by Dems:

Miguel Estrada
Janice Rogers Brown
Bill Pryor
Charles Pickering
Priscilla Owens

Only two are ethnic minorities. Other minorities have gone through. Pickering aside, the thing the other four share is that they appear to be ideologues.

Who's the white guy in Estrada's position who's gone through?

I was explaining that the man was not wrong in saying what (he believes) the Dems are doing is unprecedented. I am the lawyer I mentioned earlier working hard to be the best. I certainly can't spend the time to know the case histories of the nominees. Perhaps Club will step up on this point.
As to all being ideologues, I thought on Estrada, the Dem's main point of contention was in not turning over things he wrote. Wasn't that it? If true, at best you suspect he is an ideologue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As to all being ideologues, I thought on Estrada, the Dem's main point of contention was in not turning over things he wrote. Wasn't that it? If true, at best you suspect he is an ideologue.

That was the pretext. IMH(and not well informed)O, part of the reason they were gunning for him is that he was known to be a true believer. He was a protege of Ted Olson, was he not?

[Replaced_Texan]

Does anyone know if there is any sort of campaign financing rules regarding employers making their employees volunteer / work for the campaign? A friend (non-lawyer, in a company that expects to bid for contracts from the winning party) was recently told that she was to report to phone duty for a campaign instead of her normal job duties for the next few days. She's personally very much against the campaign she will be working for.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me, but I know very little about election law.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the guy's point is this:
its not just blackballing someone because his/her views are extreme. the Dems are applying a higher standard (or lower actually) to determine when to fight when the candidate is Hispanic/black.
He says a black judge who isn't liberal can't advance.

And I disagree with his position that this is what's happening. Moreover, that's not what he said up front -- look at the text I mocked -- Club has bailed out on this one Hank, get out while you still can.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe the Reps. improperly fought some nominations, but it was based upon the merits of how the nominee appear to think or rule. They didn't block someone because of what he was.

Re-read your statement. It is unintentionally funny. It might work if you amend it to say "because of race" . . and my response would be: "How the hell do you know?"

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone know if there is any sort of campaign financing rules regarding employers making their employees volunteer / work for the campaign? A friend (non-lawyer, in a company that expects to bid for contracts from the winning party) was recently told that she was to report to phone duty for a campaign instead of her normal job duties for the next few days. She's personally very much against the campaign she will be working for.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me, but I know very little about election law.

I would think of this not as an election law problem -- although there are surely rules about how resources go to campaigns, etc. -- but as an employment law problem. Is it legal to fire/discipline her for refusing to do these things? I would think not, but probably it depends on the state, etc.

Edited to say: I recognize that this is not as helpful as you were hoping for -- sorry.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I would think of this not as an election law problem -- although there are surely rules about how resources go to campaigns, etc. -- but as an employment law problem. Is it legal to fire/discipline her for refusing to do these things? I would think not, but probably it depends on the state, etc.

Edited to say: I recognize that this is not as helpful as you were hoping for -- sorry.

Yeah. I'm thinking this doesn't necessarily fall into "other duties as assigned." If she refuses, I think that they could come up with a context for her to be let go. The good news is that she's working on the other campaign, and maybe can do a little sabatoging from within.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Yeah. I'm thinking this doesn't necessarily fall into "other duties as assigned." If she refuses, I think that they could come up with a context for her to be let go. The good news is that she's working on the other campaign, and maybe can do a little sabatoging from within.

IT seems like a curious thing for an employer to do, unless they assume everyone is blindly loyal. Depending on what the employer is like, what about saying something like "I'm not sure I'm a good person to have working the phones on the campaign, given I don't support X for office. I'm happy to continue performing my regular duties, though." If they rebuf her, then she can make plenty of calls discouraging people to vote for this candidate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Campaign stuff

Hi RT. A while back, maybe 6 or 7 months, one or more Carolina law firms were jammed for some kind of campaign contributions in their employees' names (to Edwards' fund). I can't cite the law, but I think they were forced to return all money that was supposedly contributed in the names of unknowing employees.

There is an analogy in there about how and whether contributions can be made. If a single party is responsible for forcing the employees to contribute valuable resources, I think it would be argued that its actually the employer who is making the contribution, just like in Edwards. In other words, the employees are just middlemen.

And there *may* be rules against the total amount that a single entity can contribute, including through such middlemen.

That would be a somewhat logical extension of the Edwards controversy.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And I disagree with his position that this is what's happening. Moreover, that's not what he said up front -- look at the text I mocked -- Club has bailed out on this one Hank, get out while you still can.
S_A_M

I didn't bail on that. I bailed with respect to his exagerated statements that the DEMS are opposing "all nominees" and the "for 200 years" stuff. I actually agree that the DEMS lower the challenge standard for minorities. The challenge for Estada is based on the fact that he didn't deliver requested privileged docs, even though no nominee has ever agreed to deliver those and I believe all living solictor generals (both DEM and GOP) weighed in on the side of Estrada. The challenge for Brown is that she made some fairly contraversial statements in certain speeches over the vears, though they haven't been able to tie these positions to her rulings.

Compare these with the basis for the challenges of the other stated noniness that have been opposed. Pickering is allegedly a racist, which if true would be a valid reason (it's not true and given the work he has done in his home state, it is extremely insulting). Pryor is on the record as anti-abortion and the DEMS don't believe he can separate his personal views from that required of him under the law (even though he enforced the 10 commandments removal, against his personal beliefs). Owens has infringed far to much on the right to choose (based on her rulings in parental notification cases).

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Is it legal to fire/discipline her for refusing to do these things? I would think not, but probably it depends on the state, etc.

I'd be surprised if state employment law offered a private company's at-will employees more protection from discipline for bad politics than is offered by the Constitution to public employees. "[A]n employer may fire a public employee for purely political reasons if the employer can demonstrate that political considerations are appropriate requirements for effective performance of the job." All that is necessary to show political considerations are appropriate job requirements is evidence that the job is one in which loyalty to the boss is traditionally expected. Or at least, that's what I glean from this case.

Maybe this is one arena in which private employees have greater job protection under state law than public ones do. Your state's Department of Labor might have a hotline or website with the answer to this.

A(was "strongly encouraged" to donate money to several campaigns in a former job)G

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does anyone know if there is any sort of campaign financing rules regarding employers making their employees volunteer / work for the campaign? A friend (non-lawyer, in a company that expects to bid for contracts from the winning party) was recently told that she was to report to phone duty for a campaign instead of her normal job duties for the next few days. She's personally very much against the campaign she will be working for.

This doesn't pass the smell test for me, but I know very little about election law.

(Sorry, should have read Hello's before responding - basically the same points)

State campaign or federal? Many states have rules limiting or restricting contributions by corporations (here in Mass., corporate contributions are simply prohibited to state campaigns) and those limitations often include all kinds of prohibitions on in-kind contributions. It strikes me that requiring employees to report to work on a campaign is likely a corporate campaign contribution, and thus probably illegal.

There will be a legal counsel in whatever office administers the state campaign finance system, and they probably issue published opinions or rulings. Generally, you can go to the office and get them (because Westlaw doesn't pick them up) and leave through the binder and find situations like this addressed.