Originally posted by Spartanforlife4
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View PostSo, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View PostSo, gerrymandering is legal as long as you don’t do it enough to make it racial gerrymandering? Because that’s essentially the difference in today’s ruling versus the Virginia case, no?
EDIT - looks like uno beat me to it.Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin
Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin
"I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View PostHe was on the Court when they decided Corporations were people, right?
This is bad.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Kep
For the record - I'm a Roman Catholic who is very skeptical of the Jesuits. VERY SKEPTICAL. If they're for it, I don't take it as gospel they're right. I'm also very skeptical of the government. I believe it needs to be limited in its intrusion beyond "life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness (emphasis mine)". I believe in strong states and the 10th amendment. I believe in a Congress and an Executive Branch working together with the SCOTUS playing umpire. The Voters are VAR.
So with that, while disappointed in the gerrymander case, I think the SCOTUS was right. Leave it to the voters (who in my state, are disgusted with everyone's gerrymander but their own). As to what level the disgust has to rise to in order to replace the political inertia is something we have to watch. I'm not optimistic for Maryland.CCT '77 & '78
4 kids
5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).
I want to live forever. So far, so good.
Comment
-
Originally posted by joecct View PostKep
For the record - I'm a Roman Catholic who is very skeptical of the Jesuits. VERY SKEPTICAL. If they're for it, I don't take it as gospel they're right. I'm also very skeptical of the government. I believe it needs to be limited in its intrusion beyond "life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness (emphasis mine)". I believe in strong states and the 10th amendment. I believe in a Congress and an Executive Branch working together with the SCOTUS playing umpire. The Voters are VAR.
So with that, while disappointed in the gerrymander case, I think the SCOTUS was right. Leave it to the voters (who in my state, are disgusted with everyone's gerrymander but their own). As to what level the disgust has to rise to in order to replace the political inertia is something we have to watch. I'm not optimistic for Maryland.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by unofan View PostBless your heart.CCT '77 & '78
4 kids
5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).
I want to live forever. So far, so good.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
We could probably eliminate the whole federal gerrymandering problem by changing it so that each state gets just one representative.That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
The citizenship census question opinion is out, and it's a giant cluster of concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I think it ultimately sides with the liberals, but can't tell for sure at a glance.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
The reason provided by the commerce secretary was contrived, and under these particular circumstances, the district court was correct to remand to the agency.
Opinion does not categorically bar the question, but acknowledges that this one was done seemingly in bad faith.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by unofan View PostThe reason provided by the commerce secretary was contrived, and under these particular circumstances, the district court was correct to remand to the agency.
Opinion does not categorically bar the question, but acknowledges that this one was done seemingly in bad faith.
That's 0-2 for the big ones. Was that 5-4 too?**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View PostSo, they allow the question then?
That's 0-2 for the big ones. Was that 5-4 too?
Basically, the department needs to explain why it wants it without lying. And that reason has to be legal under the APA.
Here, the departments reason was a lie, so it couldn't satisfy the APA. But it could presumably try to add it again.Last edited by unofan; 06-27-2019, 09:47 AM.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by unofan View PostNo. Question is a no-go for now, but it's possible it could still be added.
Basically, the department needs to explain why it wants it without lying. And that reason has to be legal under the APA.
Here, the departments reason was a lie, so it couldn't satisfy the APA. But it could presumably try to add it again.
The 5-4 ruling is from Chief Justice Roberts who is joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Haven’t seen a ruling this big with that lineup since the ACA ruling.
— Kimberly Atkins (@KimberlyEAtkins) June 27, 2019
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Originally posted by SJHovey View PostWe could probably eliminate the whole federal gerrymandering problem by changing it so that each state gets just one representative.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
Comment