#PreCleared

[spearheadsofgod]

Spark Production Music Concept Design 1 https://spearheadsofgod.com/spark-production-music-concept-design-1/?feed_id=1189 Our latest production music release, "Spark," features a new cover design art concept that perfectly encapsulates its gritty, urban essence. The artwork reflects the raw energy and dynamism of the track, making it an ideal choice for films, TV, and media projects seeking a bold and edgy stock music option.

[loveyouforl000years]

flew back to the states yesterday and with all the time changes and my layover that meant yesterday was 35 hours long for me i am still so tired.. but the weather in dublin was so nice on my layover i was pleasantly surprised

[roundtripjp]

2025年1月日本預先通關&入境審查整合資訊亭導入，實現滑順入境日本，並率先對台灣實施"預先通關服務"的「預先通關&入境審查整合」全指南!

[travel-news-shares]

Etihad’s US Preclearance in Abu Dhabi Shifting to New Terminal

Etihad Airways will shift the US preclearance in Abu Dhabi to the new terminal from September Know more about its preclearance facility at Zayed International Airport here

[yessoupy]

dublin yesterday 🫡🫠

[reasonsforhope]

"Two years ago, the biggest battles in state legislatures were over voting rights. Democrats loudly — and sometimes literally — protested as Republicans passed new voting restrictions in states like Georgia, Florida and Texas. This year, attention has shifted to other hot-button issues, but the fight over the franchise has continued. Republicans have enacted dozens of laws this year that will make it harder for some people to vote in future elections. 

But this year, voting-rights advocates got some significant wins too: States — controlled by Democrats and Republicans — have enacted more than twice as many laws expanding voting rights as restricting them, although the most comprehensive voter-protection laws passed in blue states. In all, 39 states and Washington, D.C., have changed their election laws in some way this year...

Where voting rights were expanded in 2023 (so far)

Unlike two years ago, though, we’d argue that the bigger story of this year’s legislative sessions was all the ways states made it easier to vote. As of July 21, according to the Voting Rights Lab, [which runs an excellent and completely comprehensive tracker of election-related bills], 834 bills had been introduced so far this year expanding voting rights, and 64 had been enacted. What’s more, these laws are passing in states of all hues.

Democratic-controlled jurisdictions (Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted 33 of these new laws containing voting-rights expansions, but Republican-controlled states (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) were responsible for 23 of them. The remaining eight became law in states where the two parties share power (Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia).

That said, not all election laws are created equal, and the most comprehensive expansive laws passed in blue states. For example: 

New Mexico adopted a major voting-rights package that will automatically register New Mexicans to vote when they interact with the state’s Motor Vehicle Division, allow voters to request absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply each time and restore the right to vote to felons who are on probation or parole. The law also allows Native Americans to register to vote and receive ballots at official tribal buildings and makes it easier for Native American officials to get polling places set up in pueblos and on tribal land.

Minnesota followed suit with a law also establishing automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-voting list. The act allows 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote too. Meanwhile, a separate new law also reenfranchises felons on probation or parole.

Michigan enacted eight laws implementing a constitutional amendment expanding voting rights that voters approved last year. Most notably, the laws guarantee at least nine days of in-person early voting and allow counties to offer as many as 29. The bills also allow voters to fix mistakes on their absentee-ballot envelopes so that their ballot can still count, track the status of their ballot online, and use student, military and tribal IDs as proof of identification. 

Connecticut became the sixth state to enact a state-level voting-rights act, which bars municipalities from discriminating against minority groups in voting, requires them to provide language assistance to certain language minority groups and requires municipalities with a record of voter discrimination to get preclearance before changing their election laws. The Nutmeg State also approved 14 days of early voting and put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot that would legalize no-excuse absentee voting.

No matter its specific provisions, each of these election-law changes could impact how voters cast their ballots in future elections, including next year’s closely watched presidential race. There’s a good chance your state amended its election laws in some way this year, so make sure you double-check the latest rules in your state before the next time you vote."

-via FiveThirtyEight (via FutureCrunch), July 24, 2023

[whenweallvote]

Barriers to the ballot box have increased significantly since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a critical section of the Voting Rights Act with their Shelby County v. Holder ruling 11 years ago today.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Consider today’s anniversary a reminder to check your voter registration at WeAll.Vote/register.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

A long-time national champion of abortion rights is on her way to the top of the Democratic ticket. And Vice President Kamala Harris will kick Donald Trump’s ass on the issue.  Harris has been the abortion-rights lead in President Joe Biden’s administration, with a crystal clear message. [...] Harris has been fighting for abortion rights—and against the anti-abortion extremists—for her whole career. As California’s attorney general, she championed legislation cracking down on crisis pregnancy centers, forcing them to disclose that they weren’t licensed medical providers and requiring them to inform clients how they could receive abortion care. (Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck that law down in 2018.) Harris also joined with other blue-state attorneys general regularly to champion reproductive rights in the courts.

She kept at it when she went to the U.S. Senate, in 2019, sponsoring a bold abortion-rights bill modeled on the Voting Rights Act. The bill would have forced states trying to implement harsh abortion restrictions to present their new laws to the Department of Justice for preclearance—i.e., approval from the federal government—before they could be implemented.  Since the Trump-packed Supreme Court laid all those efforts to waste in 2022, ultimately ending the federal right to abortion, Harris became the leader in the fight to stop a national abortion ban and to help abortion-rights activists advance state-level protections. Harris has been the heart of the now-defunct Biden-Harris campaign’s abortion-rights fight, with a national tour that kicked off in January. She made history in March by becoming the first president or vice president to visit a clinic that provides abortion services.

As writer Jessica Valenti notes, Harris has been so effective as a “direct and enthusiastic” because she has walked the talk and is not afraid to frankly talk about the issue. She understands—and can communicate—it from a rights perspective and from a health perspective, in contrast to Biden, who evolved to a pro-abortion-rights position but has seemed uncomfortable even using the word “abortion.”

With Kamala Harris tapped as the de facto Democratic nominee and the 2024 Presidential election being the first post-Roe, Harris serves as a more effective messenger on abortion and reproductive health issues that are more in tune with the post-Roe era than Joe Biden would.

See Also:

The Guardian: Biggest US abortion rights groups back Kamala Harris as effective messenger

Abortion, Every Day: Harris/Abortion 2024

[kp777]

By Jon Queally

Common Dreams

May 05, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas are under fresh scrutiny as yet another revelation, this one reported by the Washington Post on Thursday evening shows Ginni received tens of thousands of dollars in off-the-book compensation from a powerful right-wing nonprofit shortly before the group "soon would have an interest before the court"—a pivotal voting rights case.

Based on documents reviewed by the Post, right-wing judicial activist Leonard Leo used his role as an advisor to the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, to ask GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, later a top aide to President Donald Trump, to pay Ginni Thomas a large sum but keep her name off the financial records.

"Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges," the reporting explains, "told Conwaythat he wanted her to 'give' Ginni Thomas 'another $25K,' the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have 'No mention of Ginni, of course.'"

"Leonard Leo has written the definition of court corruption. These shady schemes are a call to action to bring about ethics reform at the highest levels of the judiciary." —Kyle Herrig, Accountable.US

In response to the new revelations, Kyle Herrig, president of the public interest advocacy group Accountable.US, said "Leonard Leo has written the definition of court corruption. These shady schemes are a call to action to bring about ethics reform at the highest levels of the judiciary."

In defense of the secrecy of the payments to Ginni Thomas's firm—which according to the Post totaled $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, but may have been more overall—Leo said in a statement to the newspaper that it was necessary to keep her name out of any disclosures because of how "disrespectful, malicious and gossipy people" can be in the political sphere.

"I have always tried to protect the privacy of Justice Thomas and Ginni," Leo claimed.

"Each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house. Thomas should resign immediately..." —Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Crucially, months after these payments were made to Ginni Thomas, the Judicial Education Project filed an amicus brief in the case Shelby County v. Holder, taking the side of those opposed to a key provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As the Post notes:

The court struck down a formula in the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to obtain federal clearance before changing their voting rules and procedures. Clarence Thomas was part of the 5-to-4 majority. Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case, arguing that the preclearance requirement itself is unconstitutional. Thomas's opinion, which was consistent with a previous opinion he wrote, favored the outcome the Judicial Education Project and several other conservative organizations had advocated in their amicus briefs. He did not cite the Judicial Education Project brief.

But progressive political observers said the corruption was impossible not to see—especially given the wave of revelations about lavish gifts and financial arrangements between Justice Thomas and billionaire Harlan Crow, a right-wing mega-donor.

"This is corruption. Plain and simple," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in reaction to the latest revelation. "And each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house. Thomas should resign immediately and Roberts should see to it that he does."

Read more.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Alabama Media Group

* * * *

Alito’s gift to racist legislatures

May 24, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

From 1870 to 1965, Southern states resisted the mandate of the Civil War amendments granting and protecting the right of Black citizens to vote. After 95 years of resistance by former secessionist states, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which required that redistricting decisions be “pre-cleared” by the Department of Justice. The preclearance requirement applied to states with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices.

Chief Justice John Roberts gutted the animating force of the Voting Rights Act in his opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) by declaring that “our country has changed” and that racial gerrymandering “no longer characterizes” voting practices in the states subject to preclearance. (Of course, Roberts ignored the fact that the absence of racial gerrymandering was because of the preclearance requirement.) Roberts’ decision to end the preclearance requirement was a gift to racist state legislatures eager to return to the Jim Crow era.

Those legislatures wasted no time exploiting Roberts’ gift to the advantage of white voters. The legislatures drew congressional districts that effectively weighted white votes more heavily than Black votes. In the absence of the preclearance requirement, the only check on the power of racist legislators was litigation under the weakened provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

On Thursday, Justice Alito took another step in gutting the Voting Rights Act by inventing a “presumption of good faith” when legislatures with a history of racial discrimination draw new congressional boundaries. Like the earlier gift from John Roberts ending the preclearance requirement, Alito has also granted racist legislatures a gift—a presumption of good faith that will shield racial gerrymandering for generations to come. See Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (05/23/2024).

In little more than a decade, the Supreme Court has turned history on its head: The Voting Rights Act required preclearance for states with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination in voting practices. Alito now grants those same legislatures a “presumption of good faith” even when the practical effect of their redistricting is to dilute the voting rights of Black citizens.

In bestowing racist legislatures with the presumption of good faith, Alito is advancing the twin causes of white Christian nationalism and insurrection symbolized by the “Appeal to Heaven” flag displayed over his beach house in 2023. Alito is, in short, in the vanguard of a hostile takeover of the US Constitution by white Christian nationalists. He is completing the work of the January 6 insurrectionists who beat law enforcement officers, defecated in the halls of the Capitol, and delayed a constitutionally mandated count of electoral ballots.

The reactionary majority on the Supreme Court is acting without restraint because they believe that Democrats do not have the courage and discipline required to impose reforms on the Court. The reactionary majority is not wrong in its assessment of the Democratic Party’s dithering and temporizing in the face of a constitutional assault that rivals the secession movement preceding the Civil War.

Either the 14th and 15th Amendments mean what they say, or they mean nothing. There is no “gray area” that shields “good faith” violations of their guarantees. The “presumption of good faith” invented by Alito has no more footing than a fairy tale. Alito and his fellow insurrectionists will not stop until Congress exercises its authority to enlarge the Court and circumscribe its jurisdiction—as expressly permitted by the Constitution. US Const. Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 (“The supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”)

Alito claims to be an originalist and textualist. In inventing a presumption of good faith found nowhere in the Constitution, he has usurped the mantle of the Framers of the Civil Rights Amendments. He working to replace their vision of an egalitarian nation with a system of castes in which skin color and circumstances of birth determine which votes will be given the greatest weight.

But it gets worse. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas took the opportunity to criticize the 1954 holding in Brown v. Board of Education and suggest that the basis for that ruling is no longer valid. Thomas wrote, in part,

In doing so, the Court [in Brown v. Board of Education] took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. . . . Redistricting remedies rest on the same questionable understanding of equitable power. No court has explained where the power to draw a replacement map comes from, but all now assume it may be exercised as a matter of course.

The holding of the reactionary majority signals that they are coming for it all: Contraception, same-sex marriage, “inter-racial” marriage, and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. The reactionary majority is emboldened by the milquetoast response of the Congress to Alito’s declaration that he is an insurrectionist and a Christian nationalist looking to establish a theocracy.

There is much more to this story, but my time is limited this evening. (We flew from LA to DC today.) I highly recommend the following, each of which addresses the central question in the Alexander case: When is racial gerrymandering permissible as an adjunct to partisan gerrymandering? Per Alito, racial gerrymandering is permissible as long as a legislature claims it was attempting to achieve partisan gerrymandering. See the following:

Dissent of Justice Kagan, in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

In the majority’s version, all the deference that should go to the court’s factual findings for the plaintiffs instead goes to the losing defendant, because it is presumed to act in good faith. So the wrong side gets the benefit of the doubt: Any “possibility” that favors the State is treated as “dispositive.”

Ian Millhiser in Vox, Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito writes a love letter to gerrymandering.

On top of all of this, Alexander achieves another one of Alito’s longtime goals. Alito frequently disdains any allegation that a white lawmaker might have been motivated by racism, and he’s long sought to write a presumption of white racial innocence into the law.

Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Clarence Thomas makes a full-throated case for racial gerrymandering.

And yet, as bad as Alito’s opinion was, it didn’t go far enough for Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned a solo concurrence demanding a radical move: The Supreme Court, he argued, should overrule every precedent that limits gerrymandering—including the landmark cases establishing “one person, one vote”—because it has no constitutional power to redraw maps in the first place.

We have remedies. We need only the courage and passion to pursue them:

Open an impeachment inquiry of Justices Alito and Thomas

Demand Alito’s recusal

Pressure John Roberts to recommend an investigation by the federal Judicial Conference

Expand the Court to dilute the death grip of the reactionary majority

Limit the Court’s jurisdiction as provided by Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2

Democratic leaders have failed the American people by treating these offenses as political controversies over which Congress has no jurisdiction.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[spearheadsofgod]

Portal Production Music Concept Design 3 https://spearheadsofgod.com/portal-production-music-concept-design-3/?feed_id=1125 Our new cover design art for the latest production music release titled "Portal" is a visual representation of the transformative power of music in films, TV, and media. Featuring a captivating design, the cover captures the essence of this stock music collection, designed to transport audiences to new dimensions of sound and emotion.

[iasmelaion]

I don't care enough about this to make my own poll(s), but I feel that worst airports poll should have been separated into Worst Airports for Arrivals, Worst Airports for Departures, and Worst Airports for Connections, because these are all very different things. Like, I voted for LAX because the Arrivals experience sucks so much ass, and also because it's pretty hideous and the traffic situation is awful. But tbh I've never really had any problems with domestic or international departures from LAX. Like, you can get dropped off at your terminal, and from there it's pretty straightforward, and I've never spent more than 20 minutes or so getting through security. I've never had delays of more than an hour or so there either.

Arrivals though...UGH. Just a heinous experience all around. Total fuckin' chaos once you exit the terminal and attempt to figure out where the fuck you should go, if you're not being picked up by someone, and if you ARE being picked up by someone, still stressful thanks to the traffic and the exhaust fumes. If you're using rideshare, you either need to walk your ass to the whole separate parking lot for rideshare, or take the shuttle. There's multiple shuttles and buses for cheaper public transport but since the Metro extension isn't finished yet, the many options are confusing. Godspeed if you've parked in another parking lot: you will have to navigate the confusing signage to figure out where the hell your shuttle pick up spot is. If you parked in the economy lot, they helpfully tell you to follow the pink signs, however, MULTIPLE shuttles use these stops so you have to make sure you're getting on the right bus. The whole experience manages to feel grimy too. And of course, the horseshoe layout means that if you miss an exit/stop, you will have to ride ALL THE WAY AROUND again.

Literally the worst arrivals experience. Especially compared to all the European airports I've been to where the arrivals experience is basically less than 30 mins at customs, baggage claim, then walk right out to an easy to spot taxi stand or the airport transfer guy holding up a sign with my name on it.

Also, a special fuck you to Frankfurt for its particular awfulness for connections! The closest I have ever come to missing a flight is thanks to Frankfurt having TWO people at customs, for a line of HUNDREDS, and only after an increasingly stressful 30-40 minutes of waiting in that line, did someone finally bother to be like, "so hey, whose connecting flight is leaving basically now?" and skip us to a separate, shorter line, after which we had to RUN to make it to our gate, which was naturally ALL THE WAY AT THE OTHER END OF THE AIRPORT, and we arrived on the plane wheezing and sweaty, mere minutes before they closed the gate and departed. That flight was AT LEAST a third empty, presumably because so many other people did not make it through Frankfurt's gamut of trials.

Istanbul Airport can also be terrible for connections because it is ENORMOUS but tbf if you're flying Turkish Air they will help you out with fast lanes and such through customs, though they also had the MOST bafflingly thorough security at the gate. Like, AFTER customs and security to get to the right terminal, there was a whole new round of security at the gate itself, which involved another passport and boarding pass check, and then OPENING UP OUR CARRYONS for physical inspection by security people. No idea if this is normal for flights going to the US there, it did not happen the first time I flew from Istanbul back to the US.

Shoutout to connecting through Dublin though: even this past weekend when we were stuck on the plane for 40 mins because of a problem with the airbridge, we still made our connecting flight with a few minutes to spare thanks to all Aer Lingus flights flying out of Terminal 2 and USA preclearance being speedy and straightforward.

My favorite airport remains ONT though. So small, so calm, so usually (comparatively) empty. A very chill arrivals and departure experience. Not many great food options though iirc. Alas I do not fly into or out of it anymore now that I live in LA. I live less than 30 mins from LAX, so even though it sucks, I always fly into and out of it now.

[mariacallous]

In Texas, a trial is underway that will likely have lasting repercussions for voting rights. In La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott (LUPE v. Abbott) a coalition of civil rights and community organizations is arguing that recent Texas voting legislation violates both federal anti-discrimination statutes and the Constitution. The trial’s outcome will affect the rights of 17.1 million Texas voters, with potential implications for other states that have moved to restrict voting access in recent years.

The law known as Senate Bill 1 (S.B. 1) was passed by the Texas legislature in 2021, despite efforts by Democratic lawmakers to block it with a 38-day walkout. S.B. 1 created additional restrictions on mail-in and absentee ballots, limited the assistance that can be provided to voters, and reduced voting hours. The bill also opened election workers and voters to new forms of harassment by partisan poll watchers—an issue in many states, including Texas.

S.B. 1 is part of the latest wave of state legislation making it harder for Americans to vote. At least 26 other states have passed laws restricting voting since 2020. Many of these laws have features similar to those being challenged in the ongoing lawsuit. So far in 2023, seven states have already passed laws that restrict mail voting. South Dakota also enacted vague legislation criminalizing poll workers who do not allow poll watchers to observe the processing of absentee ballots from a “reasonable distance.”

Two parts of the Texas law have already been found illegal. In 2022, a federal judge in Texas ruled that portions of S.B. 1 restricting voter assistance violated a 2018 federal injunction. Under S.B. 1, those assisting a voter could read the text of the ballot to the voter or mark the ballot but not answer any clarification questions the voter might have. Civil rights advocacy groups including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund successfully argued that the law’s provisions hindered voters with disabilities and voters who spoke limited English.

Then, last month, the judge overseeing LUPE v. Abbott issued a summary ruling striking down sections of S.B. 1 that regulated mail ballots. The nullified sections required administrators to reject mail ballots and mail ballot applications if voters’ ID numbers on their ballot or application did not match the ID numbers provided on their voter registration form. For example, if a voter used their Social Security number to register to vote but wrote their driver’s license number on their ballot, their ballot could be disqualified, even though both forms of ID were valid. The judge found that the ID matching requirement violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, which forbids denying people the right to vote for errors that are not substantively related to their qualification to vote.

These earlier decisions bode well for voting rights in Texas. But no matter the outcome of the ongoing case, it will come too late. Already, in the 2022 primary election, thousands of voters—disproportionately voters of color—were disenfranchised by S.B. 1.

Cases like LUPE v. Abbott reveal the importance of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) . Section 5 of the VRA required state and local governments that had a history of discriminatory voting practices to receive “preclearance” from the federal government before altering their election policies. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court rejected the formula used to determine the areas that require preclearance. Shelby made it possible for places with a history of voting rights violations, like Texas, to implement restrictive voting laws for months and even years before the slow-moving legal system takes action.

Until preclearance is restored, the passage of restrictive voting laws will only be addressed in individual court cases, often years after the laws have had their discriminatory effect. In the meantime, eligible voters will be disenfranchised. The decision on S.B. 1 will, at best, provide another stopgap protection for voting rights. American voters deserve better.

[the-fiction-witch]

5th Stocking

Media Miss perigrins Home For Peculiar Children

Character Jacob Portman

Couple Jake X Reader

Rating Sweet

Halloween day 5

I locked my stuff in the locker, slipped my uniform vest on and put a hand through my hair.

"EEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee!" She squealed jumping on my shoulders

"Ahhh y/n!" I complained turning to see her "What the hell are you so damn excited about?"

"It's here!"

"what's here? That giant Cheerio's standee, Marks been yelling about?"

"No, even better" she smiled "Halloween!"

"Are we stocking?"

"Of course we are" she smiled grabbing my hand to tug me through to the stock room with her, we got the Halloween stuff and took it out to the precleared shelves where the last shift emptied all the summer stuff into clearance and the two of us began working on stocking.

Skulls, spiders, cobwebs, killer clowns, creepy dolls, bats, crows and costumes. Waves and waves of orange and black, or spooky witches and goblins, mummies, vampires, Frankenstein, as well as boatloads of Pumpkins.

I have to admit stocking is one of my least favourite jobs, it hurts my back, it hurts my back, my feet, you get shoppers bumping you with their carts, its a long boring job but Y/n's smile made the whole job better.

just being able to look over and see her cute excited smile as she stocked items, each time she found something spooky she looked so happy. It cheered me up no end to see her so happy.

"Jake look, a little black cat mug his tail's the handle" she explained showing me the cute little mug.

"Very cute y/n"

"He has little toe beans on the bottom"

"Awwww, very sweet"

"When you're done stocking those costumes, Could I have a hand holding the stairs, while I put the banners up?"

"Of course y/n no trouble, so long as I get my tip?"

"As always Jacob" she smiled kissing my cheek before she went to get to the stairs. 

[triviareads]

From the fun questions to be asked!

2. show us a picture of your handwriting?

11. what do you consider to be romance?

24. what’s one thing you’re proud of yourself for?

Referring to this post

2. My handwriting. Enjoy attempting to read these notes I recently took on preclearance and the Voting Rights Act's slow death 😭

11. What I do I consider romance? Probably a combination of when there's love, sexual attraction, and a certain depth of understanding between a couple.

24. One thing I'm proud of. I'm proud of my fics! I started writing years ago but only in the past few years have I gotten the guts to post online and gotten to be more creative.

[profnic]

Harris posted her Policy Plans - let's have some unsolicited takes!

"Fundamental Freedoms"

(link to campaign website)

Grades are based on my vibes - just like Harris' campaign is mostly vibes!

Naturally, all plans have the caveat of "if they pass Congress," which will probably only happen if the Dems take the House and hold the Senate. Even then, we know the Dems will make compromises.

There really isn't much here until the last two sentences. The "when" is optimistic but the promise to sign it will be difficult to take back. Dems have been promising to enshrine Roe v Wade into law for a long time, but now they actually have to act and are being pressured to.

My arbitrary grade: A- I would love to see more; what about birth control access and other reproductive freedom issues?

Not one, not two, but three already written-out Acts?! Be still my heart—we are getting actual policy! Both of the voting Acts are marvelous, especially the FVA. Now, it isn't ranked-choice voting, but these acts would help to fix some massive parts of our broken "democracy". The JLVRA would reinstate federal preclearance to make sure states are not discriminating against certain voters, aka racial minorities (source). The FVA does way more - requires states to provide early and mail-in voting with federal standards, AUTOMATIC voter registration in all states, protection against unlawful voter purges, banning gerrymandering, and so much more (source)!

The Equality Act enshrines protections for LGBT+ individuals as currently, the Civil Rights Act protection of LGBT+ rights is based on courtroom precedent, not law (source).

My arbitrary grade: A+

My overall grade: B. What? Why not A? There is a lot she does not cover here. Most critically, she leaves out anything to do with trans-health care and trans-people outside of the general "LGBT+". She also doesn't mention educational freedom (like how states are trying to ban teaching certain subjects) or protest rights (side eyes the Free Palestine protestors being arrested). Considering how much she doesn't cover, this downgrades her to a B. Not lower because I don't know her official plans around the missing issues - it could be good or bad.

Economic policy takes Domestic Security takes Foreign policy takes