Cory Booker, Rand Paul push to overhaul criminal justice system
Source: By Jonathan D. Salant | NJ Advance Media NJ.com
on March 09, 2015 at 1:48 PM, updated March 09, 2015 at 2:14 PM
WASHINGTON U.S. Sens. Cory Booker and Rand Paul re-introduced legislation today designed to help keep nonviolent offenders out of prison and avoid saddling them with permanent criminal records.
"Our broken criminal justice system is a shameful contradiction to our founding principles that we are a nation of liberty and justice for all," Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement announcing the legislation.
The bill, which also was introduced in the last Congress, is the product of an unusual partnership between Booker, a liberal Democrat from New Jersey, and Paul, a tea party favorite from Kentucky and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate.
Called the REDEEM Act, the Booker-Paul bill would give incentives to states to keep teenagers under 18 out of adult courts, seal criminal records of youngsters who commit nonviolent crimes before age 15, offer a way for adults convicted of nonviolent crimes to seal their records, and allow certain low-level drug offenders to continue to receive certain federal support such as food stamps.
Read more: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/booker_and_paul_re-introduce_legislation_to_overha.html
vi5
(13,305 posts)It would be unusual if Booker teamed up with liberal Democrat. Him joining forces with a Republican is the furthest thing from unusual.
That being said, it's a worthy cause and anyone putting effort towards the goal of overhauling our wretched criminal justice system deverse some degree of credit and kudos.
Agony
(2,605 posts)"Booker says he plans to try to make friends. "You should always lead with love, lead with kindness, and just be good and decent to people. I'm not one of those firebrands that throws Molotov cocktails at people and the like," he said when asked if he expected a warm reception from possible Senate colleagues. And if not? Well, he says that confrontational junior senators are making big marks nowadays. "Look at Rand Paul," he said. "Ted Cruz.""
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a24238/cory-booker-is-so-very-awesome/
barf
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Probably supporting mass incarceration with the Bush Family. If Democrats don't get ahead on this issue and marihuana legalization they could cede it to the Republicans and lose votes.
4139
(1,893 posts)mcar
(42,337 posts)She is still referred to by her past titles and if she wants to rule the free world she has to weigh in. And she is all status quo so you're right why give a crap about what she thinks because it's painfully obvious she doesn't give a crap about anyone but the 1%.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)What the heck did this news item have to do with her????? Are we gonna' hear this in every single news item posted from now until next November?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I do not do that. But when you have someone who is desiring to be crowned the nominee before the primary happens then this is the result...especially when it's someone who never weighs in to help the average person but always wants to be first in line when it matters. I gave a HUGE distaste for anyone that has colluded with the Bushes and is consisted an honorary family member. Is that so abhorrent to you? I'm not into coronations. And furthermore as the presumptive nominee I want to see her represent our interests and instead she plays the middle and let's a jackass like Rand Paul steal our issue of social justice and ending the criminal drug war.
FSogol
(45,493 posts)When she announces her run for President, then it becomes appropriate to ask her to comment on issues, current events, policies, etc.
Dumb, indeed.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Of course she doesn't HAVE TO do anything. In fact, if she is elected she can still ignore the will of the people and do nothing. Your statement is hollow. We really have lowered our standards haven't we. I can't wait to follow someone who actually stands up for us NOW like Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren and if not them then someone else because I like many Americans are completely sick of Hillary and need some hope in this world. If the moderates keep insisting on status quo malaise then we risk losing the Progressive wing much like the Tea Party fragmentation on the other side. O'Malley, Biden etc are not different it's true but we are still waiting for real change instead of smoke and mirrors.
FSogol
(45,493 posts)and in this case it makes no sense. HRC has the support of about 75% of the Democratic party including the most liberal 5% of the party. AAR, Should a private citizen be available 24/7 to answer questions? She's not running until she runs.
I like Sanders and Warren, but Warren isn't running and Bernie can't win in red or purple states. To push the party further to the left we need real majorities in both Congress and the Presidency. Only then will the party move left. Nominating unelectable folks won't help.
You are also wrong about O'Malley, he is a decent option with a real record of liberal successes. Reasons here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6322407
and here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk
Omaha Steve
(99,669 posts)Amishman
(5,557 posts)Mixed in with the madness are reasonable and potentially very popular ideas like this.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Republicans are going to be long-term underdogs if they don't address the reasons why the are so unpopular and have shown 0% interest in addressing except for Rand Paul proposing this, backing giving the felons the right to vote which the Republicans really don't want to back since it means more people voting & more people voting against them. Their odds improve the less people participate.
Rand Paul is the only Republican that can threaten enough support to swing the election. Especially if it someone like Hillary Clinton he is running against since he makes more sense regarding foreign policy, 4th amendment issues, than Hillary Clinton but I hope there isn't a movement within this party to start opposing something because Rand Paul supports it. Liberterians are good & bad which is more than I say regarding the Republicans.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Anybody think that bill has a chance in hell with this bunch?
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
Committee Members
Chairman
Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA)
Majority
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R - UT)
Senator Jeff Sessions (R - AL)
Senator Lindsey Graham (R - SC)
Senator John Cornyn (R - TX)
Senator Michael S. Lee (R - UT)
Senator Ted Cruz (R - TX)
Senator Jeff Flake (R - AZ)
Senator David Vitter (R - LA)
Senator David Perdue (R - GA)
Senator Thom Tillis (R - NC)
Ranking Member
Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT)
Minority
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA)
Senator Charles Schumer (D - NY)
Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN)
Senator Al Franken (D - MN)
Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE)
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT)
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Dianne Feinstein had an excellent summary regarding the 15 CIA lies & omissions regarding that Senate hacking thing
Al Franken definitely. Blumenthal & also associate Leahy with good work. Given all the familiar names, this is where NSA reforms came through. I love how this committee has a lot of right of the right people as part of this very important committee.
Criminal justice reform should be backed whether Rand Paul's name is in the headline or not.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)GOP-controlled committee and senate, AND house?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)y makes it but I support criminal justice reform & we have some very good people in the committee. There could have been so much worse choices on the Democrats side but they picked the right ones for the most part.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Frederick Clarkson printable version print page Bookmark and Share
Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:25:43 PM EST
In the early days of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed advocated stealth Christian Right candidates run in GOP primaries against moderates for offices at all levels, and to also conceal their true agenda in general elections against Democrats.
The creeping religious rightism in the Democratic Party has taken many forms over the years, and the list is long. But we need look no farther than the pandering to and promotion of false moderates like Rick Warren and Samuel Rodriguez, and the adoption by some of the ideas and even the phrasings of the Religious Right on such things as "secularism" and "abortion reduction" to get a sense that there is an underlying trend to which these are more the rule than the exceptions. In the past few years, we have also seen stealth Religious Right candidates in the Democratic Party, for example in Hawaii and Jacksonville, Florida. Most recently, stealth Christian Rightist Max Myers is currently running as a progressive for the Democratic nomination for governor of Pennsylvania.
Now veteran journalist Susie Madrack, writing at Crooks & Liars has an important discussion of the rightwing involvements -- including the Religious Right -- of Newark mayor and leading contender for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate from New Jersey, Cory Booker. Excerpts
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/8/12/142543/436
I think he's a stealth candidate and has more in common with Paul than we know. I Don't automatically assume he's who I'd like him to be or on the same page as myself.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)who could have thought?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)A bipartisan trio of senators will introduce historic legislation to legalize medical marijuana at the federal level.
Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Rand Paul (R-KY) are set to file the bill tomorrow.
Booker and Paul have already made names for themselves as drug war reformers, but the addition of Gillibrand as a New York senator backing medical marijuana is welcome.
The bill would end the federal prohibition on medical marijuana and allow patients, doctors, and providers in states with medical marijuana laws to go about their business without fear of federal prosecution.
Although the Obama administration has, in recent years, largely taken a laissez-faire approach to medical marijuana in states that have approved it, that approach is both uneven and dependent on the whim of the administration in power. Just last week, federal prosecutors in Washington state took a family of five medical marijuana patients--the Kettle Falls Five--to trial, threatening them with lengthy, mandatory minimum prison sentences for growing medical marijuana legally under state law (in a state where even recreational marijuana is legal!).
Fortunately for the Kettle Falls Five, a federal jury acquitted them of most charges, including the most serious ones. But under the current state of federal marijuana prohibition, such prosecutions could continue.
Similarly, the Obama administration's recent restraint on medical marijuana is derived from Justice Department guidance to federal prosecutors about which cases raise the level of federal concern high enough to warrant prosecution. That guidance was crafted by a deputy attorney general answerable to Attorney General Holder and the president. Absent protections provided by this coming bill or similar legislation, a new administration could easily return to the bad old days of DEA raids and patients and providers being hauled off to federal prison.
Details of the bill are not yet available, but will be revealed during a Washington, DC, press conference tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)It was something of a surreal moment. Charles de Ganahl Koch, the nerdy multibillionaire from Wichita who has become known as the Rasputin of the American Right, was trying to explain to me why he was getting into bedpolitically speakingwith people like George Soros, his progressive archrival in the big-money-and-politics set, and Cory Booker, the liberal black senator and former mayor of beleaguered (and very Democratic) Newark, New Jersey.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/charles-koch-overcriminalization-115512.html#ixzz3Tvl2bcBM
HERES A REFORM EVEN THE KOCH BROTHERS AND GEORGE SOROS CAN AGREE ON
BY TINA BROWN11.09.14
Do you like lists? Of course you do! Its the Internet! So try this one:
1. Koch Brothers
2. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
3. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
4. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
5. George Soros
6. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
7. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
8. Newt Gingrich
9. American Civil Liberties Union
10. Grover Norquist
Apart from a passionate certainty that either liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans (pick one) are a danger to the republic, what does this motley crew have in common?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/09/here-s-a-reform-even-the-koch-brothers-and-george-soros-can-agree-on.html
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)was giving money to the ACLU in their shared opposition to the Patriot Act which I opposed since the first time I heard of it. Libertarian ideology isn't very tricky to figure out. They just apply the freedom regarding individuals to private business which is very troubling.
It isn't so unusual or shouldn't be seen as unusual that Rand Paul & a Democrat agree on something such as Criminal Justice Reform or a lot of 4th amendment issues.
Viewing Reason.com gives a good idea you see editorials ranging from critical of our punishment system
http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/07/cruel-unusual-and-crowded
to their ridiculous titled Scott Walkers brave stand against big labor
http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/09/scott-walkers-brave-stand-against-big-la
They also don't like government funded anything so say something like the VA, a Liberterian would generally prefer to get rid of. It is like a philosophy that is universally applied to everything, get the government completely out of the way let freedom flourish but a lot of freedom they support would kill us.
So Rand Paul is his own worst enemy as to potential political power he could gain.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)with that Citizens United bullshit...I let my membership lapse after that and never looked back....
Rand Paul has long shown to be big on words and short on action...They cynic in me says he's only doing this to curry favor (and hopefully votes) with the black community, since all his other efforts have been disasters...
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I think that is the view the ACLU took, the Supreme Court decided to set several precedents over so many unrelated issues regarding the dispute over a movie nobody saw but regarding when the lines between "art" "campaign ads" should have been thrown out.
Patriot Act, I opposed since early 2000s, it doesn't matter if the Kochs or whoever oppose it too, it doesn't change my view.
BumRushDaShow
(129,165 posts)Not quite, at least in the sense that they are trying to portray him to somehow show a distinction of him vs Paul. He's definitely a DLC/Third Way/New Democrat of whatever they call themselves. I.e., he is corporate/big business. But on social and urban issues, he would be "liberal".
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Unfortunately, being "liberal" on social and urban issues isn't always at odds with continued corporate hegemony.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)correct twice a day...
Joe Johns
(91 posts)Good idea!
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)There are way too many low level offenders who cannot become gainfully employed because of misdemeanor crimes they have committed, in many cases the charges are from many years ago, unfortunately our justice system does not believe in 2nd chances...
Response to proverbialwisdom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Most Americans live in Purple America, not Red or Blue America
By John Sides
November 12, 2013
...In terms of the most important driver of political choices partisanship most of us live in a purple America, not a red or blue America.
<>
Here is a map of the 2012 presidential vote at the county level by the University of Michigans Mark Newman:
[center][/center]
...Once you take into account population and this more purple mix, you get a U.S. map that looks like this:
[center][/center]
<>
Neither party can indefinitely promote policies the public opposes in a democracy.