https://archive.ph/aR1MT
“While I appreciate the author's work to create a more equal justice system, this policy needs to be part of budget discussions,” Newsom said in his veto message. “With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure”
The Judicial Council has estimated that the expanded program would cost the state between $4 million and $9 million a year. The veto means the San Francisco program will end this year.
Gawrsh, if you're vetoing everything good for budgetary reasons, perhaps you should expand your budget by taxing the rich?
Newsom would probably veto it and say that it would be too expensive to change the state tax office and they don't have the budget to print new forms or get pencils.
coen_bros_related_scene.mp4I think me posting a link to the clip would be close to (if not actually) fed posting. Of course I'm referring to a particularly funny scene in Raising Arizona. Or maybe I've got my movies mixed up.
Nah, a normal Guillotine is fine. A wood chipper isn’t designed to deal with all the wet goop a human becomes, it’ll get gummed up
I know for a fact that California has plenty of abandoned mineshafts
Making serving on a jury less financially painful would encourage more poor and working class people to serve on juries.
$9 million a year for the fifth largest economy in the world? sorry can't do it!
surely the 5th largest economy in the world cannot afford a few million dollars to make its justice system more fair
At this point, passing progressive legislation in California only seems meaningful if the legislature is willing to override the guaranteed veto, which the California legislature has not done since 1980. Without that, the legislature is just hand-wringing obediently.
That's so fucking funny lol
The contradiction between the belief in the justice system and the complete disrespect of jurors needs to be brought up more
Honest to god, it's in the court system's best interest to literally grovel at the feet of potential jury members and treat them like royalty. The fact that they don't even get so much as a non-insulting amount of monetary compensation for their time is really just cruelty for the sake of it.
Juries do not need to convict regardless of whether the evidence proves the defendant comitted the crime. It is fully their right to vote however they want for whatever reason they want. That is the right to jury nullification. The justice system prevents that from happening by thoroughly screening jurors. Under the threat of perjury, the courts check each prospective juror for not just intention of jury nullification, but even mere knowledge of its existence as a right.
The only thing preventing the knowledge and justification for jury nullification from spreading to most every potential juror like wildfire is the recognition of legitimacy and respect for the US government, its institutions, and its reactionary laws. If jurors view the court as evil and illegitimate, then they're sure as hell not going to sit back and send people to prison on the basis of laws widely despised by the majority of American citizens.
Policies like the criminalization of drug possession and charging anyone who has ever had so much as a miscarriage with murder are already massively unpopular. They could easily become de facto unenforceable because it takes only one juror to hang the verdict. Just 1/12th of all potential jurors would need to be willing to use jury nullification and accept a small risk of perjury charges in order to save an innocent person from life ruining charges.
it's in the court system's best interest
Why? Court best interest is to get plea deals, and long wait times and accompanying lawyer's fee is the shit to fuck poor people
Because if potential jurors were to stop seeing the court as legitimate in sufficient numbers, they'd be much more willing to use jury nullification against obviously horrific laws. Defendants in such cases would never receive guilty verdicts and therefore lawyers would advise to never take a plea deal in such an easy to sympathize with case.
Just hooting from the balconies here but, in agreement with cosecantohi, it's the random selection bias not being neutered yet lies a strength within the jury
Yeah I'm spit balling with my post but it's legitimately a thing we should be pointing out more. The jury is a bit of a weak link in the chain of oppression we have here, I don't know if there's been a movement calling it out before
Meanwhile, fiscally disciplined California governor Gavin gets paid over $200,000 a year
Dude is on a Veto Roll; psychedelics, insulin, and now this. I'm sure there are a bunch more that aren't off the top of my head.
Attempted a roundup yesterday, not knowing there’d be so many more: https://hexbear.net/post/793411
Newsom's presidential platform:
- Opposes protecting trans kids
- Opposes unemployment for striking workers
- Supports psychedelics criminalization
- Supports transfers from prison to ICE
- Supports driverless testing of autonomous trucks
- Supports caste discrimination
- Supports solitary confinement lasting longer than 15 days
- Demands hearing aids not be included in children's health insurance coverage
- Supports expensive insulin
- Opposes paying low-income jurors $100 a day
sorry, it would simply cost too much to allow the poor to have a voice in society
cost the state between $4 million and $9 million a year.
That's hilarious in a dark way.
Newsom's 2028 presidential campaign is going gangbusters!
I'm in the red - I've never made it to the second day and they've never reimbursed me for day one's bus fare.
Apparently Gavin Newsom is on a speedrun to ensure he gets fourth in California’s Dem primary like Kamala Harris did.
Kamala took herself off the ballot on the final day it was possible to do so, she didn't even get fourth she got nothing
No one will care cause he signed (or ordered idk) fast food workers minimum wages to be mandatorily the half of what it should be.
