What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
Gerrymandering is one of those issues where every voter should mobilize against both parties. When representatives can choose their voters the entire American democracy falls to ruin.

Removing partisan politics from drawing districts is a bare minimum requirement for a working democracy.
Click to expand...

As laudable as your goals may be, I'd prefer Dems (and Goopers as well) to focus on what's achievable in the here and now. To that end, the state lawsuit that forced less partisan lines in PA is a good template for what could work elsewhere. There's also the laws enacted by citizens initiatives in Florida and Arizona that either curbed gerrymandering or put it in the hands of an independent commission. I'd be happy to see that applied in places like WI, MI, NC and OH as well as IL, MD, MA or any other Dem gerrymander.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
Like nominating someone more electorally appetizing than transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.
Click to expand...

Hey, your misogyny helped make this happen so every time corporate American wins at the SCOTUS make sure to give yourself a pat on the back (or a flogging, whichever you prefer). ;)
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Rover said:
As laudable as your goals may be, I'd prefer Dems (and Goopers as well) to focus on what's achievable in the here and now. To that end, the state lawsuit that forced less partisan lines in PA is a good template for what could work elsewhere. There's also the laws enacted by citizens initiatives in Florida and Arizona that either curbed gerrymandering or put it in the hands of an independent commission. I'd be happy to see that applied in places like WI, MI, NC and OH as well as IL, MD, MA or any other Dem gerrymander.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the reaction to aspiration that says "that's not achievable." So what? So, just forget about it?

We should use the end of partisan districts and the end of political bribery as stars to navigate by while we build towards those goals with policies. The important thing to remember with both these issues is they aren't the usual left vs right, they are voters vs the political establishment. These are reforms we are going to have to force on both unwilling parties. It's their rent-seeking that we have to overturn. The GOP and Democratic Establishment will squeal like stuck pigs against eliminating either of these criminal enterprises. We will have to fight together.

And that's very good practice -- voters of both parties joining forces to fight the political class, because it's not that big a leap afterwards to the 99% fighting the 1%.

Left vs right politics is, in large part, just black vs white writ large: a way to divide the sheep so the wolves can feed.
 
joecct said:
It is. But it has been part of the US political process since the founding of the republic without court interference.

The solution is also political - make sure that the legislature can't do that via the ballot box.

One of the questions I plan to ask the MD legislative candidates this fall is their position on the gerrymander. If they think it's no big deal, they will not get my vote.
Click to expand...

So essentially your solution to R's being disenfranchised is for R's to use their votes to effect change. Do you not see the logical flaw there?
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
I've never understood the reaction to aspiration that says "that's not achievable." So what? So, just forget about it?

We should use the end of partisan districts and the end of political bribery as stars to navigate by while we build towards those goals with policies. The important thing to remember with both these issues is they aren't the usual left vs right, they are voters vs the political establishment. These are reforms we are going to have to force on both unwilling parties. It's their rent-seeking that we have to overturn. The GOP and Democratic Establishment will squeal like stuck pigs against eliminating either of these criminal enterprises. We will have to fight together.

And that's very good practice -- voters of both parties joining forces to fight the political class, because it's not that big a leap afterwards to the 99% fighting the 1%.

Left vs right politics is, in large part, just black vs white writ large: a way to divide the sheep so the wolves can feed.
Click to expand...

Kep its not that your heart isn't in the right place. Its just that once again you're giving righty voters way more credit than they've actually earned. Yes everyone should strive for fair districts regardless of ideology but that ignores the fact that approx. half the voters are in a cult. I know you dream of a utopian society where common sense objectives unite everyone, but I'd ask you to consider what happens when common sense doesn't appeal to the entire right end of the spectrum?

National anti-gerrymandering legislation is not achievable because the SCOTUS stands in the way. Much like overturning Citizens United. So, confining this view to our lifetimes, a state by state assault on the problem is what's needed and achievable. Its already happened in places like FL and AZ. Really we're talking a handful of states that need to be addressed. In no particular order NC, MD, OH, IL, WI, and MI. Most other states are either too small to matter, already have laws in place, or are partisan enough that even a change in redistricting law wouldn't really affect their representation (think Mass or Tennessee).
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

bronconick said:
I must not get the details on that lawsuit involved because it seems that it'd be obvious. Maybe because Michigan started it a year or two ago.
Click to expand...

If a company has no physical location in a state, there's no way for the state to force a company to collect sales tax. So, with me being in MN, and purchasing something from a company in, say, CA, the CA company never had to comply with MN state taxation laws because it wasn't here. CA's sales tax laws state that any purchase made within its borders must have sales tax collected, but with online sales, the question becomes much more vague. Did the purchase happen in MN, or perhaps WA, if the company is using an Amazon server service?

Aside from now collecting sales taxes for 50 different states, they might now be required to zero in on municipalities, or ZIP codes, where special local sales taxes exist. This could turn very ugly and expensive for online retailers, both large and small. And all the while, the brick and mortars will go on with the mistaken notion that the sales tax is what gave these online retailers their *only* sales advantage.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Yeah. This appears to be the 'biggie' of taxing the internet folks have been fearing/wondering about for some time. Previously the largest online retailers - AMZN - were collecting tax as they largely had a presence in each state already. But most online retailers, even other major ones, don't. It will raise online prices.

Not familiar with the details...but I'm supportive. It wasn't just tough for brick and mortar retail to compete against online because of the imbalance...it must have been painful for state governance as taxable sales revenue became unattainable.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Interesting lineup. I would've guessed the four liberals (tax collection good) plus Thomas (states' rights) were the majority. Instead it was 4 conservatives plus Ginsburg in the majority, with Roberts joining the other liberals in dissent.

It's funny. I agree with the outcome personally, but I can't help but also agree with the dissent on the technicalities. The dormant commerce clause really is where Congress should act if it doesn't like what the Court does, and if Congress has chosen not to act in the last 50 years, why should SCOTUS change its mind?
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

5mn_Major said:
Yeah. This appears to be the 'biggie' of taxing the internet folks have been fearing/wondering about for some time. Previously the largest online retailers - AMZN - were collecting tax as they largely had a presence in each state already. But most online retailers, even other major ones, don't. It will raise online prices.

Not familiar with the details...but I'm supportive. It wasn't just tough for brick and mortar retail to compete against online because of the imbalance...it must have been painful for state governance as taxable sales revenue became unattainable.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that the states should eliminate the sales tax and just move to increase income taxes. Given the regressive nature of a sales tax, this means reduced purchasing power for those who need it most.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

St. Clown said:
I'm of the opinion that the states should eliminate the sales tax and just move to increase income taxes. Given the regressive nature of a sales tax, this means reduced purchasing power for those who need it most.
Click to expand...

this works as many states (at least the ones mookie has experience in) have low(ish) rates and a small number of brackets
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

unofan said:
Interesting lineup. I would've guessed the four liberals (tax collection good) plus Thomas (states' rights) were the majority. Instead it was 4 conservatives plus Ginsburg in the majority, with Roberts joining the other liberals in dissent.
Click to expand...

I'd have expected the liberals to oppose since sales tax is regressive.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

unofan said:
The dormant commerce clause really is where Congress should act if it doesn't like what the Court does, and if Congress has chosen not to act in the last 50 years, why should SCOTUS change its mind?
Click to expand...

I was kinda thinking this was a congress issue also.

But I'm on board with the SC 'changing its mind' after long periods on subjects where progress changes the game. Not holding breath on the second though.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

5mn_Major said:
I was kinda thinking this was a congress issue also.

But I'm on board with the SC 'changing its mind' after long periods on subjects where progress changes the game. Not holding breath on the second though.
Click to expand...

They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Kepler said:
They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
Click to expand...

OK...good with changing their minds due to societal progress and not special interest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top