Democrats Deny Work to Conservative Businesses

a reply to: Byrd

So states can not award contracts based on the political ideology of those bidding.



Discrimination by any other name. . . .

a reply to: Kali74

If California pulls this off successfully, o

If California pulls this off that means.

States get to define who gets to get married. Say good by to same sex marriage.

States get to enforce their own border control.

States get to say bye bye gun control.

THATS how it works.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're saying that Trump is merely going to finish the work of the Secure Fence Act?

That's not what he says.

His "Great Wall" is entirely different because apparently, what we already have is ... non-existent, since his claim is that the US has done nothing to protect our borders, prior to his advent of course.

His proposal adds 300 miles to the 700 already passed and approved by Congress in 2006. If more people actually were learned on the history of "The Wall" I believe some stances may change, but alas, the only "news" 80% of the US actually hears is from their social media platforms....who cares about history though right?

Entirely correct.

Who cares about history?

Clearly not the current administration, lol. They don't want to continue funding historical avenues - moar war pleaze!

a reply to: neo96

No. THATS not how it works.

A state has the ability to engage in an ideological boycott. When NC passed their bathroom bill, several states engaged in a boycott against NC. For as long as SC flew the Confederate flag at their State House, several states boycotted SC. A boycott against construction companies that takes jobs related to building a border wall, that California overwhelmingly opposes, falls under the same protection.

In order for states to be able to legislate marriage again, they would have to overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

a reply to: Kali74

That's exactly how state Rights work.

a reply to: neo96

A state can ignore a SCOTUS ruling?

a reply to: Kali74

Those business do have a 14th amendment RIGHT.

As per the corporate personhood ruling that gives SOME rights of people.

By that same SCOTUS.

DEAL.

No state shall make or enforce any LAW.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think conservatives and Republicans should be open in their dishonesty and hypocrisy that desperately portrays States taking steps against a Federal political act by using a political act as discrimination.

Let's just tell the truth here, eh?

So if Trump only finished the 700 miles already approved by the aforementioned senators, that would be ok right?

The wall approved in 2006 is 99.5% complete. Did you say something about being knowledgeable about the topic? LOL.

Look, either we can take Trump as his word or we can't. He has been selling this fantasy of a 55 ft high impregnable wall along the southern border. If that's not what he intends to do, when is he going to tell us about it?

Either way, the subject here is alleged discrimination against contractors because of their political beliefs, when in fact, it is one of our levels of government providing checks and balances on another.

Working as intended.

originally posted by: windword
I don't see how this is any different that the Federal Government allowing states to deny state and federal Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to individuals and facilities that accommodate the full spectrum of legal and Constitutionally protected women's health and reproductive services.

I wrote out a long response to this, but I deleted it. Just suffice it to say that it's not the same thing, even if you don't see why, you're comparing two completely different things. I just lost my desire to get into that debate by the time I finished writing my response.

We'll agree that they're similar, but different, and I would argue that, at the very least, it's not the responsibility of the federal government to pay for abortions, but it is to pay for the protection of our borders, even if I disagree with the efficacy of a wall. Private companies should not be blacklisted because they work on such a project--that is cronyism and corruption any way you slice it, all based on the political ideology of a few legislators.

That's ridiculous! There are plenty of construction companies that will be available to get the job done. The same amount of workers will be needed and employed and will be paid the same amount whether or not their parent company is vying to build Trump's ill conceived wall.

You pretend like all immigrant workers are tantamount to rental tools, and aren't hired on full-time or have loyalties to one company versus another.

The bottom line, no matter if there will be plenty of immigrant workers on all companies bidding on state contracts, is that this is still state-initiated corruption based on possible (it hasn't even been done yet) legal business conducted with the federal government that some state officials might take offense to. It reeks at all levels, and like I said, it would not hold up past the 9th Circuit, IMO. It's a mob tactic--they're trying to hold these companies hostage from getting business and making money just because they don't like the job that they would be doing, and threatening their potential livelihoods if they do said jobs.

If you are fine with that, I hope that you never get into politics...I don't care which side of the aisle that acts this way, the motivation behind this bill is corrupt. It can't be any more textbook than this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Either way, the subject here is alleged discrimination against contractors because of their political beliefs, when in fact, it is one of our levels of government providing checks and balances on another.

I'm not sure that you understand the federal system of Checks and Balances--it has nothing to do with the states being corrupt and denying private companies the right to win bids for state jobs because they work on federal jobs. It does exist, however, to ensure that illegal, corrupt, and discriminatory laws like the one proposed in the OP don't get very far.

And the only reason that we can call this discrimination "alleged" is because the bill hasn't become law yet, but the bill itself is about as obvious a discrimination lawsuit (amongst other things) that one can be staring at.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're not sure? Let me help.

Legislators in California, New York and Rhode Island (per the report) have chosen to introduce legislation in State Houses to attempt to restrict a ridiculous degree of overreach and egotism by President Trump.

One of the fundamentals of the American system is that the States exercise checks on the Federal government, where applicable, and vice versa. If you don't understand that, I'd say it's you with the issue.

States have the right to choose how to spend their own funds. Yes or no?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Legislators ?

Legislative hacktavists.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

A state can ignore a SCOTUS ruling?

Yes, by all means they can--a SCOTUS ruling in and of itself does not rewrite the law, so until the state amends or strikes down a law on the books, the law is still valid.

What the SCOTUS ruling does do is basically opens up the ability to sue the state and easily win, because the pinnacle of the judicial system has said what they are doing is wrong.

Of course, the DOJ can get involved, too, if states continue to be stupid about it, but technically speaking, a law is still a law until officially changed by the state. But there are many avenues where this issue could be handled, to include passing a federal law or getting Congress involved in some way, or the president doing something within his executive power.

I mean, if a judge issued a direct order and that was ignored, the governor at the very least would be looking at contempt charges.

But the bottom line is that SCOTUS doesn't legislate, only the state can legislate something that falls in accordance with their rulings. If that doesn't happen, there are avenues to take to deal with it, but in the end, if a state was so adamant about ignoring a SCOTUS ruling and all subsequent efforts to force compliance, no one really knows what would happen because it has never gotten to that point before, according to what I've read on the topic.

I think an underlying truth that needs noted is that, often times, a SCOTUS ruling is subjective to the ideological make-up of the court and not always objective to the letter of the law, and I think that's where a lot of these hypotheticals stem, because something a previous SCOTUS would rule may not be the same ruling made by the SCOTUS of ten years later. That type of subjectivity that should not exist in the SCOTUS (but does) is a major contributing factor to these hypotheticals, IMO.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

We'll agree that they're similar, but different, and I would argue that, at the very least, it's not the responsibility of the federal government to pay for abortions, but it is to pay for the protection of our borders, even if I disagree with the efficacy of a wall. Private companies should not be blacklisted because they work on such a project--that is cronyism and corruption any way you slice it, all based on the political ideology of a few legislators.

No, they're not different. If a facility or an individual chooses to offer the full spectrum of women's health services, the state can refuse to reimburse that entity for other services, offered to other individuals covered by Medicare and Medicaid. They can be barred from serving all medical clients who use Medicare and Medicaid. Just as those states mentioned in the OP have proposed that those contractors that perform services related to "The Wall" can be refused state contracts for other projects, not connected to "The Wall". Same/Same.

The bottom line, no matter if there will be plenty of immigrant workers on all companies bidding on state contracts, is that this is still state-initiated corruption based on possible (it hasn't even been done yet) legal business conducted with the federal government that some state officials might take offense to.

If that's true, then the Trump administration is guilty of exactly the same type of coercive corruption.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Legislators ?

Legislative hacktavists.

Right, because your political opinions should override the people who voted for them, right?

You can't keep your authoritarian BS out of the way long enough to complain about authoritarian BS, Neo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, because your political opinions should override the people who voted for them, right?

'

So I guess the 4.5 million people that live in California that voted for Trump RIGHTS don't mean squat.

Glad that's sorted.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, because your political opinions should override the people who voted for them, right?

'

So I guess the 4.5 million people that live in California that voted for Trump RIGHTS don't mean squat.

Glad that's sorted.

What does voting for Trump have to do with this? Trump is now that overreaching Federal government ruling by Executive Orders you were complaining about for the last 8 years.

This is a States Rights matter, Neo. Pure and simple.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, because your political opinions should override the people who voted for them, right?

Gee I don't know what voters opinions have to do with the topic about punishment people for their votes.

This is a States Rights matter, Neo. Pure and simple.

No.

They only matter some of the time and only when they agree with leftist views.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, because your political opinions should override the people who voted for them, right?

Gee I don't know what voters opinions have to do with the topic about punishment people for their votes.

Ah. Well, you're the one that brought it up. I don't know what relevance it has either.
/shrug

a reply to: neo96

Yeah, no.

States Rights matter all the time. They exist in a balance with the powers of the Federal Government.

You guys only whine and CRY when States Rights are exercised on behalf of Democrats; then you want the Fed to be in control.

Pfft.