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.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
To the extent that this data is accurate, TX is third behind CA and AZ for per capita illegal immigrants.

I'm surprised MS and LA are so low -- I'd have thought they were much higher. Based on population the big absolute numbers are in CA, TX, NY and FL, though CA and TX really dwarf the rest.
Click to expand...


It would be nice to see a % of state's population that's registered to vote table. Not of eligible voters but of total inhabitants. My point being is you could see a shift back to a state like PA, or even MN, where there's not a lot of illegals so they have a greater % of their people as voters. By right that should ensure them a greater slice of the overall pie, hence a shift in congressional districts from Texas to those states. You'd also benefit older states without a lot of children as they wouldn't be part of the new calculations either.
 
Rover said:
It would be nice to see a % of state's population that's registered to vote table. Not of eligible voters but of total inhabitants. My point being is you could see a shift back to a state like PA, or even MN, where there's not a lot of illegals so they have a greater % of their people as voters. By right that should ensure them a greater slice of the overall pie, hence a shift in congressional districts from Texas to those states. You'd also benefit older states without a lot of children as they wouldn't be part of the new calculations either.
Click to expand...

I feel like a broken record, but the suit is only about state legislature districts, not federal ones. Congressional districts are clearly apportioned based on "whole number of persons." The "one person, one vote" rule is incorporated to the states through the equal protection clause. This suit is specifically attacking the interpretation of the equal protection clause, not the federal apportionment clause.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
It would be nice to see a % of state's population that's registered to vote table. Not of eligible voters but of total inhabitants.
Click to expand...

Can't find it after a thorough 2 minute search.

It would be great to have a table with: total population, eligible to vote, registered to vote, voted (say, 2012) gathered for each state.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
You'd also benefit older states without a lot of children as they wouldn't be part of the new calculations either.
Click to expand...

I was going to write that my intuition is that effect would be negligible. But I went out for data. HOLY FRCKING CHRIST, there's a huge difference. Basically, the places you expect women to have the educational profile of, say, Saudi Arabia -- UT, TX, ID, AK, GA, KS, MS -- have an insane number of rug rats running around. Those people don't read a lot; I guess there's nothing else to do.
 
Kepler said:
I was going to write that my intuition is that effect would be negligible. But I went out for data. HOLY FRCKING CHRIST, there's a huge difference. Basically, the places you expect women to have the educational profile of, say, Saudi Arabia -- UT, TX, ID, AK, GA, KS, MS -- have an insane number of rug rats running around. Those people don't read a lot; I guess there's nothing else to do.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe they like to copulate after reading the (good) book. :)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
I feel like a broken record, but the suit is only about state legislature districts, not federal ones. Congressional districts are clearly apportioned based on "whole number of persons." The "one person, one vote" rule is incorporated to the states through the equal protection clause. This suit is specifically attacking the interpretation of the equal protection clause, not the federal apportionment clause.
Click to expand...

Wasn't sure about that. I wonder why SCOTUS is getting involved then. Why not just state court handling it?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
Wasn't sure about that. I wonder why SCOTUS is getting involved then. Why not just state court handling it?
Click to expand...

I'm a little rusty on this, so I willingly admit that this could be off base here.

If your state's local districts are set based upon a different qualifying value, that can determine the impact of state elections. If state office holders establish the Congressional voting districts for their own states, then that would have an impact on the federal government and thus involvement of the SCOTUS.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
I would say yes in that they're using the region's services, so if you're allocating representation by population these people count. You can't not investigate a crime if a foreign national working for the UN gets mugged for example. One could also argue that they're contributing to the local economy....
Click to expand...

you are confounding two completely separate matters together into one jumbled mish-mash.

Everyone deserves public safety protection.
Tourists from foreign countries also use the region's services, and contribute to the local economy, and no one is suggesting we base how electoral representation is allocated based on the number of tourists that visit an area.
People even call animal rescue to help dogs and cats in distress. No one is suggesting we base how electoral representation is allocated based on the number of canines and felines.




The electoral franchise is limited. Representatives win elections based solely on the majority / plurality vote totals drawn only from among that franchise. Two natural questions logically arise:
-- does the Constitution allow the allocation of electoral districts based on a population consisting solely of the electoral franchise, as one option among many?
-- does the Constitution forbid / require that particular form of allocation, or any one specific formula to the exclusion of all others?

That's the narrow reading of the question being argued.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
I feel like a broken record, but the suit is only about state legislature districts, not federal ones. Congressional districts are clearly apportioned based on "whole number of persons." The "one person, one vote" rule is incorporated to the states through the equal protection clause. This suit is specifically attacking the interpretation of the equal protection clause, not the federal apportionment clause.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Rover said:
Wasn't sure about that. I wonder why SCOTUS is getting involved then. Why not just state court handling it?
Click to expand...

They filed it as a 14th amendment claim, which gives federal courts jurisdiction. It was originally heard by a 3-judge panel of district judges as is common for election districting cases, which means appeals go straight to SCOTUS rather than the court of appeals.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

It's June, which means the big cases start getting decided.

Today we got the EEOC v Abercrombie opinion, finding in favor of a job applicant who was denied a job because of her religious head scarf.

We also got the Facebook threats case, U.S. v Elonis, which was decided in favor of the alleged threatener though on very narrow grounds which avoided the first amendment altogether.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This could go on the Clayton Forester thread, too.

After a momentary exultation I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it the more worried I got. Should be interesting to see the inevitable court ruling(s) and their grounds.

On the one hand: if you're a complete fckwit and your "philosophical decision" is endangering people, then you should lose. No, your kid can't bring his coastal taipan to Show and Tell "because it's part of our religious observance." Screw you.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the legislature is where I want "degree of fckwittedness" to be defined, if you follow. "We hereby ban science and math as they are danger to our children's souls. Now let's burn the observatory."

Surprised to see WV already has this law. That raises them in my estimation from Mississippi to Alabama.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
This could go on the Clayton Forester thread, too.

After a momentary exultation I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it the more worried I got. Should be interesting to see the inevitable court ruling(s) and their grounds.

On the one hand: if you're a complete fckwit and your "philosophical decision" is endangering people, then you should lose. No, your kid can't bring his coastal taipan to Show and Tell "because it's part of our religious observance." Screw you.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the legislature is where I want "degree of fckwittedness" to be defined, if you follow. "We hereby ban science and math as they are danger to our children's souls. Now let's burn the observatory."

Surprised to see WV already has this law. That raises them in my estimation from Mississippi to Alabama.
Click to expand...

What's ironic is that Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country because it only allows medical exemptions, and even those it highly restricts.

It's one of the few things it's ahead of the country on.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

unofan said:
What's ironic is that Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country because it only allows medical exemptions, and even those it highly restricts.

It's one of the few things it's ahead of the country on.
Click to expand...

This may just be more proof that anti-vaxers are mostly hippie morons, not Christian morons.
 
ericredaxe said:
The big thing in my hometown now is an anti fluoride movement. Lord knows all of the health agencies that endorse it must be wrong.
Click to expand...

That was a big thing in the 60's. Then there were the anti phosphates in your laundry detergent folks.

Everything runs in circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top