General Assembly Pre-Game Show/Post-Game Wrap-Up: Thurs., May 11, 2017

Filed in Delaware, Featured by on May 11, 2017

Law ‘n order is back with a vengeance in Dover. And, hey, why not cede the entire agenda to ex-cop Steve Smyk?

Two of his crappy bills passed the Senate yesterday and head to Jellyfish John for his signature. This one and this one.  Hey, let’s drop a pile of charges on a bunch of prisoners. That’ll set ’em straight. Also easier than tackling the total mess that is Delaware’s corrections system.   BTW, can one of our lawyer lurkers explain to me what legally defines an assault ‘committed with a reckless state of mind’ and how it differs from a plain ol’ assault?

The General Assembly has given in to its worst demagogic tendencies.  It hasn’t been this bad since the so-called War on Drugs, which was how Senators Tom Sharp and Jim Vaughn, Rep. Wayne Smith and then-AG Jane Brady colluded to throw as many black people in jail as possible.  The overrreaching that the Honorables are doing now will have to be pulled back at a later date, just as the worst excesses of the War on Drugs are still being rolled back in Dover.  History repeating itself.

What’s up with Dave McBride? Guy’s the Senate President Pro-Tem.  He was also the only D to vote no on SB 68 (Ennis).  All the R’s went not voting, no, or were absent.  All the D’s voted yes, except McBride.  Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I can only say that it’s pretty unusual for a situation like this to occur.  As the leader of the D’s in the Senate, the Pro-Tem is the last person you would expect to put the kibosh on a D bill like this when every other D voted yes . (Correction: Please see below.)  Strange.  But then, Dave’s always been a pretty strange dude. If I ever wrote a book on my times in Dover, I’d devote at least an entire chapter to Dave.

Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report.

Today’s Senate Agenda.

Today’s House Agenda.

I’m all General Assemblyed out for this week.

See you Tuesday.

About the Author ()

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. My bad. My very bad. Sen. McBride changed his vote from yes to no b/c SB 68 required a 3/5 majority. The bill would fall short with or w/o McBride’s vote.

    So his no vote was a parliamentary maneuver. In order to revive the bill, someone from the ‘prevailing’ side must move to restore the bill. The ‘no’ side was the prevailing side, so McBride would be able to move to do just that should the bill get a couple of R votes.

  2. Blackflyer says:

    We know the death penalty is applied more to minorities than whites. It is unfair and therefore should not be the last resort of the state. It does not deter. Kind of like hiring an electrician to fix a broken plumbing pipe. It does appeal to the worst of our nature, the desire for revenge. That coarsens us as a society, making us more tolorant of savagery of all kinds. We should be horrified at the prospect of the state killing someone in our name. If this is the best we can expect from Representative Smyk, I’d like the folks in the 20th to plan for his early retirement. I might even help them.

  3. Jason330 says:


  4. Blackflyer says:

    The abortion issue is really an arguement about when ensoulment occurs. We don’t bother about any creature that has no soul. Religionists believe humans have souls, and murder is a crime not so much against a body, but against a soul. So when ensoulment occurs is important to religionists. Jewish people have written that ensoulment happens a birth, upon the taking of the first breath (linking the soul to the element air, from that it stands to reason that death occurs when the person takes their last breath. As the air leaves, so does the soul.) Not bad reasoning. Still Elated seems to share the view that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception. (Note that there is no reasoned explanation for this.) Under this framework, abortion is murder because a fetus has a soul. Killing the fetus is the same as killing a born person. This entire position is odd for any person living in the 21st century. We know that the world has finite resources. How many more than 7.5 billion will the ecosystem sustain. We are already changing the ecosystem in ways that may be deleterious and cause the collapse of our species. On top of that, in our republic we place great value on the supremacy of the individual citizen. We put in place real barriers to the state taking away a citizen’s liberty, for example. What is the value of a fetus then, relative to a woman? More? Less? The Same? A woman is a fully formed human. A fetus will form in the future, probably, with medical interventions. But why should the “rights” of an unborn human weigh more than the born human? Why do men get to decide about the rights of women? Why should women have fewer choices than men? It is a question I cannot answer because I don’t believe there is a objectively useful answer to that question. So Still Elated, I cannot share your opinion.

  5. Jason330 says:

    When I find an anti-abortion person who is as passionate about being pro-birth control and pro-sex-education as they are passionately anti-abortion – then I will have found my first honest anti-abortion person. That is a person I’d like to talk to about these topics. Everyone else is a fraud or a dupe.

  6. Anon says:

    The sperm source has plenty of input just doesn’t have legal right to force a woman to do something she doesn’t want to. Is it really hard to understand, a woman being able to make the final call over her own body???

  7. pandora says:

    The sperm donor has complete control. Don’t donate.

  8. Jason330 says:

    lol. That’s right.

  9. Alby says:

    “The world has finite resources” ? Seriously?

    Uh, yes. You have revealed your stupidity in a way only the truly stupid can — with pride.

    Question for Blackflyer: At what point does the soul abandon a Republican’s body? It clearly happens before death, but when, exactly, do they become soulless ghouls full of hate and resentment?

  10. Blackflyer says:

    Still Elated. You DON”T believe the world has finite resources? You lost me at “seriously”. I’m wasting my time trying to have a discussion with a person who buys his thoughts “off the rack”. Get back to me AFTER you’ve learned to think for yourself.

  11. RE Vanella says:

    Still Elated, you’re right, buddy. Men have had the short end of the stick for far too long! I can’t believe I didn’t see it until an anonymous imbecile commented on the internet.

    FYI, the fact that Sanger was a eugenics champion is about as relevant today as the fact Lincoln was a Republican. Your cliches are weak and you are weak.

    I can understand why you don’t use your real name. Weak minded coward.

    Please keep commenting.

  12. Alby says:

    Another conservative who might as well be a robot. Complete inability to think for itself.

    The most unfortunate abortion is the one your mother failed to get.

    Why don’t you go back to jerking off goats, or whatever it was you did before you decided to bother your intellectual superiors?

  13. RE Vanella says:

    That’s my name, motherfucker. You’re anonymous because you’re scared. It’s been my experience that the man who anonymously insults another man isn’t as confident as he fronts.

    I guarantee I know more about Planned Parenthood than you. You don’t know who you’re talking to.

    The Lincoln example was to illustrate how worthless your Sanger reference is.

    Keep commenting. I love it. Fucking coward.

  14. mouse says:

    A women’s reproductive choices are none of your business. You people must have something wrong with you to be so obsessed with controlling women’s reproductive choices. It’s always sexual issues first and foremost with conservative types.

  15. Susan Morris says:

    @Still Elated, the Sanger comparison to Lincoln is apt. While he may have freed the slaves, he still did not believe that they were to whites. You know, that 3/5ths reference the founding fathers made. He also didn’t want them to remain in the U.S. because he didn’t think we should live together.
    Both Sanger and Lincoln were a product of their time. Both had their moments to shine but were hardly perfect by today’s standards.

  16. Gymrat says:

    The Dred Scott Decision was handed down in 1857. Just a wee bit post “Founding Fathers”
    Lack of basic historical knowledge reduces credibility

  17. Alby says:

    So does lack of understanding. She said Lincoln supported the idea that African Americans were less than fully human. Reading comprehension isn’t about understanding each word individually. If you can’t grasp the context — and are holding someone typing on a blog to academic standards of precision in language — you’re probably trying on purpose to miss the point. In your case, it wouldn’t be the first time, IIRC.

    That said, Lincoln’s preference for sending blacks to Africa was motivated as much by his belief that the races could not live together peaceably as it was by racism — that is, he did not place the onus on the slaves alone. He didn’t think that the races “shouldn’t live together.” He believed they couldn’t live together. Big difference, and it wouldn’t be hard to conclude he was prescient about that part.

  18. Susan Morris says:

    Thank you Alby, I shouldn’t respond to anything that early in the morning. My brain thought my hands had finished the sentence, but apparently not.
    So what exactly do I not understand about basic historical knowledge? Slavery was legal before President Lincoln’s term (1861-1865). The Dredd Scott decision was handed down in 1857 (before slavery was abolished). While there were “free states”, not all white people living in those states believed that black people were on the same evolutionary level and turned a blind eye. Or for those who believe in god, created equal. Lincoln didn’t believe that any man should be owned but it wasn’t his intent that they would then become citizens or even remain in the U.S. once free. That is racism. Institutional racism isn’t a new invention. Willful ignorance throughout history has us in the situation we are in today.
    Now, who wants to talk abortion and why many (not just men) in society still feel that they have a say in an individual’s reproductive health choices? Or this myth that women tend to make the choice of abortion without consulting the man who they are in a relationship with? Or WTF is wrong with a man that has sex with a woman for pure recreational enjoyment (no intent for pregnancy on either party) but because pregnancy occurred, all of a sudden feels a tug at his paternal heart strings and feels entitled to weigh in?

  19. chris says:

    No comments on Carney shutting down DEDO to give power to a small group of corporate guys in public/ private partnership?? Its all about the State Chamber