ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Roberts found a technicality like in the ACA case to do it.
Roberts found a technicality like in the ACA case to do it.
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 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
- Thread starter FadeToBlack&Gold
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
You gave us your real reason and that's unconstitutional so come back with a lie and we'll buy it.
You gave us your real reason and that's unconstitutional so come back with a lie and we'll buy it.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
How could they possibly get away with that though on a lower court level now that the cat's out of the bag? It seems the court took into account the info found on the dead Gooper operative's computer even though it hadn't formally been presented as evidence yet. Something that Thomas noted in his dissent. If Ross goes to court and argues differently he ought to walk out of there in leg irons after being arrested for perjury. The reasons behind adding the citizenship question are now clear and well known.
How could they possibly get away with that though on a lower court level now that the cat's out of the bag? It seems the court took into account the info found on the dead Gooper operative's computer even though it hadn't formally been presented as evidence yet. Something that Thomas noted in his dissent. If Ross goes to court and argues differently he ought to walk out of there in leg irons after being arrested for perjury. The reasons behind adding the citizenship question are now clear and well known.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
I'm not sure Roberts likes being lied to. IIRC the court had as similar ruling when states tried to shut down abortion clinics using zoning rules. In essence it was don't BS us about your real motivations. Similar to the ACA ruling as well.
I'm not sure Roberts likes being lied to. IIRC the court had as similar ruling when states tried to shut down abortion clinics using zoning rules. In essence it was don't BS us about your real motivations. Similar to the ACA ruling as well.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
By leaving it to the voters, do you mean having voters implement independent districting commissions? Because outside of that, data mining has allowed republicans to maintain large majorities in certain state governments despite slight to overwhelming defeats in the popular vote. So outside of large demographic movements, it will be almost impossible to defeat those.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
That's one trait I can appreciate.
That's one trait I can appreciate.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Supreme Court allows partisan gerrymandering. Of ****ing course
Supreme Court allows partisan gerrymandering. Of ****ing course
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Does the Court have to accept the state's argument as if it were true and then rule on that or can it say, "no, we know the state is lying"?
My layman's understand is juries decide fact and judges decide law, therefore the state can lie before a judge and get away with it. In the Census case the state is obviously lying. The sole purpose is to suppress brown votes. They have documented evidence. It's inarguable. But if the state brings in a completely concocted argument does the Court have any means of declaring the state is in bad faith? Does the other attorney have a method of making that the pivot of the decision?
Does the Court have to accept the state's argument as if it were true and then rule on that or can it say, "no, we know the state is lying"?
My layman's understand is juries decide fact and judges decide law, therefore the state can lie before a judge and get away with it. In the Census case the state is obviously lying. The sole purpose is to suppress brown votes. They have documented evidence. It's inarguable. But if the state brings in a completely concocted argument does the Court have any means of declaring the state is in bad faith? Does the other attorney have a method of making that the pivot of the decision?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
IINM they almost ruled that independent districting commissions were unconstitutional -- Kennedy stopped them and then only because it was a referendum. With Drunky McRapist on the Court who knows?
It's a slow moving coup but it's not really that slow.
IINM they almost ruled that independent districting commissions were unconstitutional -- Kennedy stopped them and then only because it was a referendum. With Drunky McRapist on the Court who knows?
It's a slow moving coup but it's not really that slow.
aparch
Acetaminamerican
One article I saw said its not a federal issue. So this becomes a state issue only then?
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Yes States can decide it the SC said it wasnt an issue for the Federal Court to decide.
Yes States can decide it the SC said it wasnt an issue for the Federal Court to decide.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Lovely. Liberal states courts will strike liberal partisan gerrymandering down but conservative state courts will let conservative partisan gerrymandering stand.
Once again, the dummies beat the smarties because they have no conscience.
Lovely. Liberal states courts will strike liberal partisan gerrymandering down but conservative state courts will let conservative partisan gerrymandering stand.
Once again, the dummies beat the smarties because they have no conscience.
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
I'll be shocked if it's not added. This isn't 1979. It doesn't take almost a year to hold the presses and get their story straight.
Even if it doesn't go out the ruling is a ceramic dalmatian compared to the gerrymandering verdict.
I'll be shocked if it's not added. This isn't 1979. It doesn't take almost a year to hold the presses and get their story straight.
Even if it doesn't go out the ruling is a ceramic dalmatian compared to the gerrymandering verdict.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Gerrymandering is about the GOP cheating in some states now. Census is about the GOP cheating in all states in the future. The consequences of the latter are far more devastating. Combined with their Gestapo raids on Latino homes they're on their way to their white nationalist homeland.
It's really noteworthy how no conservative will stand up against them. What a bunch of cowards.
Gerrymandering is about the GOP cheating in some states now. Census is about the GOP cheating in all states in the future. The consequences of the latter are far more devastating. Combined with their Gestapo raids on Latino homes they're on their way to their white nationalist homeland.
It's really noteworthy how no conservative will stand up against them. What a bunch of cowards.
In my state (MD), the Ds have full, veto proof control of the legislative process. The voters need to replace a few to eliminate the super majority. If they don't want to, then it is same old, same old.
My county (Montgomery) is worse. We have a 9 member council, 5 elected by districts and 4 at-large. The Tacoma Park triangle (ultra progressive) controls a majority of council members. To change to 9 single member districts would require local and Annapolis approval. Not going to happen.
Exactly. The farmer with the shotgun just told the foxes to guard their own darn henhouses.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Correct. Liberals lose again. Because, well, reasons.
Correct. Liberals lose again. Because, well, reasons.
D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
But it’s not the end of the world! A white older dude told us so.
He is right- nothing will end for white men. It’s the minorities who lose their voices here, and many will for decades, but no reason to get bent out of shape
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs
Lets take a more dispassionate look at gerrymandering now that the Feds are going to have a hands off approach (aside from blatant racism).
Gooper gerrymanders: MI,WI,OH,TX,GA,NC
Dem gerrymanders: IL, MD
Michigan (citizens initiative) and North Carolina (Dems now control state supreme court) should take care of themselves. Yes I expect the GOP to try to hang on like grim death, but in both places the state courts aren't friendly to their position.
Ohio - Passed some half measure to head off a citizens initiative. Basically it shortens the amount of time the new lines are in place if not a bipartisan agreement to 4 years. Total GOP control of Gov, legislature, courts.
WI, TX, GA - not good. Dems p issed away chance at winning state supreme court this year in Wisconsin. Dispute between legislature and Gov goes to them (basically a reverse of Pennsylvania). Moderate chance at winning state House in Texas next year but again presumably dispute would go to GOP state supreme court. Same with Georgia.
Potential Dem gerrymanders. On the bright side if you like fighting fire with fire, Dems now have total control of New York and after courts redrew racial gerrymander in state house are in a good spot for the same trifecta in Virginia. If the SCOTUS has now ruled that anything goes, lots of opportunity in these two states.
So you could have a situation after 2020 where the GOP has gerrymandered TX, OH, GA and WI while Dems have done the same to NY, IL, VA and MD. That's a lot better than where we were after the last round of redistricting.
Lets take a more dispassionate look at gerrymandering now that the Feds are going to have a hands off approach (aside from blatant racism).
Gooper gerrymanders: MI,WI,OH,TX,GA,NC
Dem gerrymanders: IL, MD
Michigan (citizens initiative) and North Carolina (Dems now control state supreme court) should take care of themselves. Yes I expect the GOP to try to hang on like grim death, but in both places the state courts aren't friendly to their position.
Ohio - Passed some half measure to head off a citizens initiative. Basically it shortens the amount of time the new lines are in place if not a bipartisan agreement to 4 years. Total GOP control of Gov, legislature, courts.
WI, TX, GA - not good. Dems p issed away chance at winning state supreme court this year in Wisconsin. Dispute between legislature and Gov goes to them (basically a reverse of Pennsylvania). Moderate chance at winning state House in Texas next year but again presumably dispute would go to GOP state supreme court. Same with Georgia.
Potential Dem gerrymanders. On the bright side if you like fighting fire with fire, Dems now have total control of New York and after courts redrew racial gerrymander in state house are in a good spot for the same trifecta in Virginia. If the SCOTUS has now ruled that anything goes, lots of opportunity in these two states.
So you could have a situation after 2020 where the GOP has gerrymandered TX, OH, GA and WI while Dems have done the same to NY, IL, VA and MD. That's a lot better than where we were after the last round of redistricting.
- Status