sunflower-voter (Kate Rogge)


Comment history

ACLU sues to block new Kansas voting regulation championed by Kobach

Kobach is such a disgraceful Secretary of State. Are the courts really going to allow him to control Kansas elections by suppressing Kansas voters?

July 20, 2016 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Republicans show little appetite for anti-Trump push

Kris Kobach is the "Kansas Zealot [who] Helps Shape the GOPs Right-Wing Platform"

What is the matter with Kansas politicians?

July 18, 2016 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Federal 'religious freedom' bill likely to become a campaign issue in Kansas

It's an election cycle, and all this crazy dog whistle posturing is to appeal to single issue voters. They know it won't stand up in court, and they don't care.

July 17, 2016 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Federal 'religious freedom' bill likely to become a campaign issue in Kansas

I don't see what is so difficult for you to understand in this matter. If you choose to operate a public business in the public marketplace, you are subject to the same laws and regulations regarding nondiscriminatory public access as every other business in that marketplace. You may not discriminate among the public in providing your business's goods or services regardless of your personal beliefs, even when you claim those beliefs to be religious. If public accessibility is untenable to you, you may convert your business to a private enterprise and discriminate to your heart's content. Or close your business altogether. Your choice.

The most distressing fact, to me, is not that some people who believe the US Constitution protects their right to discriminate in public businesses based on religious faith. It's that three (and probably all) of Kansas's four US Representatives agree. What a low point in Kansas history. What a damn shame.

July 17, 2016 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas told to repay $11.9 million to federal government; Brownback administration to appeal

Governor Brownback only answers to Charles and David Koch. They bought him, they own him, and they tell him what to do. Kansans can go hang.

July 16, 2016 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Online campaign and video urge Lawrence to again take up East Ninth Project

Shouldn't the City's $3.6+M be spent on the new Police Headquarters instead of a vanity project that harms neighborhood residents and businesses along East Ninth? Let's fund our actual needs first, and worry about being hip later.

July 1, 2016 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas denies firing clerk not attending office Bible study

It's always lawless Kris Kobach.

July 1, 2016 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ACLU urges judge to rule quickly on Kansas voter registration case

"A state judge in Shawnee County ruled recently that SOS Kobach has no legal authority to make such an order, but he did not specifically issue an injunction blocking him from doing so." What does it take to realize that Kobach has no intention of changing his plans? Issue the injunction, and get ready to do much, much, more to ensure that all registered Kansans can vote in August and November. We're in the middle of a political coup, for crying out loud, and the courts do not seem willing to stop Kobach from destroying Kansas elections.

June 28, 2016 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected to affect abortion clinic restrictions currently on hold in Kansas

Dog whistle, Mr. Summers. The Texas law was always about eliminating abortion in Texas. It was never about medical safety. When Texas was asked by the Court to identify an instance in which a woman was harmed because of the doctor's lack of permissions, it was unable to cite ONE. Just another solution to an imaginary problem where the 'solution' materially harms women's reproductive rights (or voting rights, or public responsibilities for public schools). Read the Washington Post article about the Court's decision:

Judge Ginsburg wrote a separate concurrence calling Texas out for lying about medical safety and cautioning other states that they'd better be prepared to prove such claims to the Supreme Court.

"The concurrence is less than two pages. She dismisses Texas’s argument about its interest in protecting “the health of women who experience complications from abortions,” by countering that “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” She recites a laundry list of studies of how safe abortion is, and then she delivers the message: “So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that ‘do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,’ Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.”

She is writing into law the factual finding that abortion is safe, full stop. When the court turns to the Alabama law, with its “finding” that women need abortion to be restricted, she wants that future court to be able to cite to her opinion that they do not."

June 27, 2016 at 10:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected to affect abortion clinic restrictions currently on hold in Kansas

Thank you Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy, and the great and glorious Ruth Bader Ginsberg! THANK YOU.

June 27, 2016 at 9:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )