@wokkamile The point is that the Forward Party will be challenged, in every way, by an army of lawyers hired by the Democrats, who do not like their monopoly on "centrism" challenged. (The Republicans, being a cult, are not centrists, and so do not feel so challenged.) And in the resultant legal battles we will "discover" that there is no Constitutional guarantee for the sacred two-party system, and a lot of "centrist" money will be wasted in making this "discovery."

#2.1.1 on the left might be needed, but as I said, there seem so few on the true prog left with which to form such a party.

And good luck getting $$$ out of politics. Would need Congress to act boldly with a new federal law prohibiting all contributions during an election period (say 90 days before the election) and the law would need to restrict the ability of Scotus to review it. So far the D Congress has been reluctant to act on any sort of Court reform restraining its oversized and illegitimate power.

The Forward Party?? Looks like Joe Scarborough would love that one. Neither Yang nor the center-right Whitman can articulate much in the policy positions and principles area except to express some Yang math that splits every issue down the middle, a little for the right a little for the left. It's all above-the-fray self-righteous centrism.

@gjohnsit 'Can you separate race, class, and gender from psychology and biology?'

Seldom do people dare to ask where society itself comes from - especially since all three of those categories are well-known to be total illusions (pseudointellectuals of course prefer the term "construct" to make it sound as if ANYTHING they work with in any way real).

Even more important, of course, is the (Phillip K.) Dick-Test:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

That's what I hate most about all this IdPo stuff: They're dealing with illusions, so the ONLY solution (or at least the essential first step) is to STOP BELIEVING IN THEM - instead they are determined to work as vectors for the parasitic memes that consume them. This shit was MORIBUND, my generation has been forcibly devolved and robbed of its rightful place in history!

Once again, politics and science simply do not mix, and the results when they do are almost invariably catastrophic to both science and people.

#3.1.1 where I welcome the in-your-face class bigotry of the wealthy over having to tolerate yet another liberal tell me that "you can't separate race and gender from class". Knowing full well that the liberal has never willingly brought up the topic of class even once in their life except to dismiss it.

@wokkamile

That in the case of forcible felonies release is not automatic.

BUT - check the fine print of the link you referred me to and you will see that a hearing before a judge to determine whether pre-trial release in such cases is not automatic *either* - it will only be held if the state requests it. And if they don't...?

Other issues with the bill include the large number of offenses for which people cannot be detained (only cited) AT ALL. Like trespassing. Which, I guess means that if someone decides to set up a tent, live in your front yard and use your flower bed for a latrine your legal recourse would be... what, exactly?

FWIW I agree that people should not be penalized in the legal system simply for being poor (and that no-one should have to spend extended periods in pre-trial detention) - but neither should society be penalized by allowing a relatively small number of offenders serially offend with impunity.

How this has been working out in NYC post-'reform':

If you look at defendants arrested for felonies in just the first two months of the 2020 bail laws (again, from July 1, 2020 to Aug. 30, 2020)...(h)ere’s what the data show:

In New York City in that time period, 3,680 defendants were arraigned for felonies. Fully 70% of them (2,564) had a prior or pending case at the time of arrest. Among those 2,564, there were 2,401 pending cases, and more than 11,539 prior convictions. These were not first-time offenders. Nor were they last-time offenders: OCA data shows 31% of these people were re-arrested before their case was disposed.

And note the qualifier: “before their case was disposed.” That number does not include arrests while awaiting sentence or after sentence. In fact, OCA initially included those arrests with the data but then quickly “corrected” it, eliminating almost 25,000 re-arrests, thereby reducing the re-arrest rate.

Looking more closely at these felony arrests, 594 of the defendants had a prior pending violent felony offense — burglary, attempted murder, assault, rape or kidnapping — when they were arraigned. Incredibly, 190, or one in three of them, were released on no bail on their new case. And 58% (111 out of 190) were arrested again before their case was disposed.

Note, too, that 915 of these felony defendants had a prior pending non-violent felony arrest — car theft, grand larceny, drugs and commercial burglary, for example — with 375 released on no bail. Of those freed, 62% (231 defendants) were arrested again before their case was disposed.

Of the defendants arrested for home burglaries, 89% had a prior or pending case. And of the 73 released with no bail, 40 (or 55%) were re-arrested while their case was pending. By contrast, only 15% of the home-burglary defendants who had bail set were re-arrested.

Source: NY Post

BTW - how's your support for no *ideological* double standards? Any concern to spare for those J-6 protestors who have spent more than a year and a half in pretrial confinement and DENIED bail?

#4.1.2 as a biased and misleading take probably from a RW site using a single RW source.

Not an Illinoisan, but this new law appears to still always give judges the ability to decide in individual cases who shall be permitted out and who must remain behind bars, which is the way it should be. It's a way of restoring some justice to the justice system by not penalizing arrestees for lack of money. We all know who most of the people are who end up not having the cash to make bail, which is probably why cash bail has remained SOP in this country for so long. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/illinois-safe-t-act-end-cash-bai...

@gjohnsit

(above)

#4.1.2 A hard right-wing source. So I clicked on it's source, and do you know what I found? Another right-wing source.
You would never know that this bill they are talking about is actually rather sweeping. I bet you thought that this bill only had one feature - to let murderers go free.
Here's the facts:

Some on social media have dubbed it a so-called "purge law," likening it to the horror film "The Purge," in which criminal activity of all kinds is allowed for 12 hours. Others have claimed it will lead to "non-detainable offenses," a claim legislators and Gov. J.B. Pritzker have said is false.

Under the law, the state will allow judges to determine whether individuals accused of a wide range of crimes pose a risk to another individual or to the community at large, and then decide whether to hold them in pretrial detention or to release them on their own recognizance.

While some publications and social media posts, cited by Snopes, have argued that some crimes will become “non-detainable offenses,” including second-degree murder and other violent acts, the state says that judges will still be allowed to order pretrial detention in specific circumstances.

“Detention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a specific, real and present threat to a person, or has a high likelihood of willful flight,” according to the text of the bill.
...
According to the text of the bill, defendants can be denied pretrial release if a hearing finds that they meet any of the following criteria:

-The defendant is charged with a “forcible felony” that comes with a mandatory sentence of imprisonment without probation upon conviction, and that the release of that defendant would constitute a threat to any person or the community at large.

“Forcible felonies” include “first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”

-If the defendant is charged with stalking or aggravated stalking, and their release would pose a threat to the community or to an individual.

-If the defendant is charged with domestic battery or aggravated domestic battery, and their release would pose a threat to the community or an individual.

-If the defendant is charged with a sex offense, and their release would pose a threat to the community or an individual.

-If the defendant has a high likelihood of “willful flight to avoid prosecution” and is charged with a forcible felony.

Unfortunately, based on this example, if you are going to try and prove that Dems are sort on crime by anecdote, I'm going to have to check every one of your sources because you aren't doing your due diligence.
And by due diligence, I mean for yourself (not for me).