Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great piece! Just a few excerpts below make me dislike the council and their idiotic childish decisions without any regard for the longer term.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/why-im-worried-about-dcs-criminal

I really started paying attention to this process when the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised objections to a small number of the rewrite’s provisions. I assumed that either the Council would address his concerns or else there would be a huge high-profile political fight about it. But neither of those things happened, and the Council proceeded full-steam ahead, even as the mayor and the chief of police joined the U.S. Attorney in raising red flags.

Suffice it to say, though, that I hope rational people can agree that Mayor Muriel Bowser, Police Chief Robert Contee, and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are not right-wing media personalities or dilettante pundits. Running through advocates’ side of the argument over this, it seems to me that they can’t decide whether they’re dispelling the myth that this is a soft-on-crime, anti-carceral measure or motivated by the fact that that’s exactly what it is.

the biggest issue with this legislation without explaining why it’s controversial: the Revised Criminal Code Act is going to require either a large expansion in the number of jury trials held in the city or else a significant reduction in enforcement of the law against people who commit misdemeanor offenses.

the Council actually can’t provide the resources in question due to the unusual constitutional status of the D.C. legal system.

Matt makes a solid argument. Reinstating the right to jury trials for misdemeanors is a nice idea in a world without resource constraints, but will likely have adverse consequences given prevailing realities. That doesn’t change the fact though that key provisions of the RCCA have been blatantly mischaracterized by politicians and pundits seeking to score cheap political points from credulous constituents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole situation plus the two other bills being reviewed by Congress illustrates the only reason I support DC statehood. This city is badly to poorly run in many areas but the way the Congress is allowed to simply over rule decisions of the democratically elected representatives of the people of DC is the definition of taxation without representation. Yes, I know, I could move elsewhere. Blah blah blah. That doesn’t make this situation any more acceptable in the capital of the free world. And I would say this if the party positions were reversed. And I don’t agree with major portions of the crime bill.

We should get to vote on exercise of the police power where we live without being overruled by people who live somewhere else.

The majority of DC residents actually pay no federal taxes. So there’s that.

Anonymous wrote:If DC becomes a state, most of the council would not get re-elected

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

No, Congress gets oversight over DC because the writers of the Constitution didn't envision a city that people would live in, pay taxes in, and expect representation in. I don't blame them for not having a crystal ball. I do blame hypocritical Republican representatives from random states a long way from DC who believe it's somehow appropriate for them to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters of DC, how they do or do not get to spend DC tax money. Indefensible hypocrisy, no matter how much they try to dress it up.

+1 I heard some jacka$$ congressman from Georgia on the radio today say that the streets of DC are so filled with criminals that he is afraid to be on them. I don't think HE has ever been on them in the first place! And I am NOT for the current version to reform the criminal code, but how dare these hayseeds blow into town and decide what we do?

Could we just let the residents of DC not pay federal taxes if we have to put up with this??

How dare one group of hayseeds who blew into town tell another group of hayseeds who blew into town how to run DC? What do you think the council would look like if you had to live here 10 years before voting? Had to be born here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

No, Congress gets oversight over DC because the writers of the Constitution didn't envision a city that people would live in, pay taxes in, and expect representation in. I don't blame them for not having a crystal ball. I do blame hypocritical Republican representatives from random states a long way from DC who believe it's somehow appropriate for them to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters of DC, how they do or do not get to spend DC tax money. Indefensible hypocrisy, no matter how much they try to dress it up.

+1 I heard some jacka$$ congressman from Georgia on the radio today say that the streets of DC are so filled with criminals that he is afraid to be on them. I don't think HE has ever been on them in the first place! And I am NOT for the current version to reform the criminal code, but how dare these hayseeds blow into town and decide what we do?

Could we just let the residents of DC not pay federal taxes if we have to put up with this??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

+1. This is the nation's capital, not some podunk city in the middle of nowhere. There needs to be a limit to how far the Council can drive this place into the ground. If other nations have to warn their citizens about traveling to the capital of the United States because of rampant carjackings and armed robberies in the daytime, then it is absolutely an issue for Congress to address. If it falls on House Republicans to be the adults in the room, so be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

No, Congress gets oversight over DC because the writers of the Constitution didn't envision a city that people would live in, pay taxes in, and expect representation in. I don't blame them for not having a crystal ball. I do blame hypocritical Republican representatives from random states a long way from DC who believe it's somehow appropriate for them to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters of DC, how they do or do not get to spend DC tax money. Indefensible hypocrisy, no matter how much they try to dress it up.

+1 I heard some jacka$$ congressman from Georgia on the radio today say that the streets of DC are so filled with criminals that he is afraid to be on them. I don't think HE has ever been on them in the first place! And I am NOT for the current version to reform the criminal code, but how dare these hayseeds blow into town and decide what we do?

Could we just let the residents of DC not pay federal taxes if we have to put up with this??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

How, exactly, would DC residents call for a constitutional convention? Maybe their Senator could vote for one, or their House rep? No, wait...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not GOP. Dislike the Retrumplicans. But honestly I enjoyed watching the squirming. DC Council deserves the dragging. The Mayor vetoed their idiotic bill, but the arrogance and the hubris…

Anyway, I hope they learn their lesson. And DC voters, can we get some normal people elected? Ideally who are no quite so corrupt and self-interested.

And for goodness sake no more carpetbaggers please (Nadeau and Allen are awful, we have much better candidates who grew up in the Wards 1 and 6.

+1

I am quite happy to see the Council’s arrogance and hubris get checked and it needed to be.

Arrogance and hubris? For performing their duty as elected representatives. Not sure what -ism motivates your insane statements, but suffice to say that you have issues dear friend.

Its the council's duty to turn the city over to lawlessness? Its the council's duty to dilute the votes of citizens?

Voter's didn't force the council into this foolishness. This entirely the council getting high on its own supply.

This is how representative democracy works. Voters vote for representatives, representatives do things. If the voters don't like the things the representatives do, then at the next election, the voters can vote for different representatives. You're just upset that the majority of voters vote for representatives who do things you don't like.

And this is how the Constitution works. Congress gets oversight over DC because its too important to let the locals run it into the ground. If DC residents don't like it, they can call a new constitutional convention. You're just upset the founders set up DC to have adult supervision.

No, Congress gets oversight over DC because the writers of the Constitution didn't envision a city that people would live in, pay taxes in, and expect representation in. I don't blame them for not having a crystal ball. I do blame hypocritical Republican representatives from random states a long way from DC who believe it's somehow appropriate for them to tell the government of DC, duly elected by the voters of DC, how they do or do not get to spend DC tax money. Indefensible hypocrisy, no matter how much they try to dress it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one ran against Allen in Ward 6, OP. So many people complain about him, but not a single person ran against him?? What does that say about Ward 6?

I get what Allen and the other young progressives on the Council are doing. They all view themselves as future mayoral candidates and are continually trying to outflank each other with increasingly extreme spending and policy proposals. The one that makes much less sense is Frumin. While, like the rest of the council he has no actual private sector work experience, he is a grown man and has actually raised a family in DC. Yet he is acting like a 20-something bike activist that doesn’t know any better. It’s embarrassing and shameful.