SCOTUS rules against democracy in Gerrymandering case!!!

[CaughtInThe]

All gerrymandering is is subverting the will of the people. Anyone that allows their own politicians to gerrymander is part of the problem.

Pretty much sleaze.

 

[HumblePi]

I see, so you're saying that the other side abused their power so now it is your side's turn to abuse their power.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'll be clearer for you. Republicans have abused their powers in the House and Senate since 2016. Mitch McConnell absolutely refuses to take up any bills proposed in the House in a bipartisan vote. Devin Nunes was Trump's little Congressional spy. Freedom Caucus members right now -- every day, get in front of a television camera whenever they can or go on Fox to talk about "leaks" coming from the committee investigation. And it's all lies. There are no leaks.

The democrats are the party of real patriotism and allegiance to the rule of law and the Constitution and that's the format and basis under which they have conducted themselves from the first day Trump took office. Deal with it.

 

[Craig234]

Right.

Not really. Gerrymandering is mostly about stealing FEDERAL elections by redrawing districts by STATE legislatures. Second, winning state legislatures once a decade should not give perpetual power by redrawing districts to deny the majority the power for the rest of the decade.

 

[Praxas]

Gerrymandering doesn't have much more effect than illegal voting does. It's impossible to gerrymander unless you won and if you won the first time it is rather difficult to claim that that same side wouldn't have won the next time.

If you won at a smaller margin you can gerrymander to where you can win at larger margins. Sad that you like a crooked system like this. I wouldn't have a problem with Gerrymandering if it were done at the very least bi-partisan or by computer.

 

[Helix]

The USSC will allow ‘total people’ to be counted when it comes to the reapportionment of the 435 House seats, seeing that as a federal issue. This will benefit red states like AZ, TX, FL, GA, and NC to name a few.

At that point, the USSC has signaled they would support these red states in NOT counting ‘non-citizens’ when they do redistricting in 2021, which will Decrease the # of Democratic CDs compared to current practices.

The Democrats are on a path to allow themselves to be manipulated out of existence. The ineptness of that party never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Helix]

No it isn't. They can't do things they can't do just because you want them to.

I've had my fill of right wing lies and squirming around the truth for the moment, thanks.

 

[Craig234]

Republicans have abused their powers in the House and Senate since 2016.

Long before, but including since 2016.

Mitch McConnell absolutely refuses to take up any bills proposed in the House in a bipartisan vote.

McConnell has killed hundreds of good bills Democrats in the House passed, including under Bush.

Devin Nunes was Trump's little Congressional spy. Freedom Caucus members right now -- every day, get in front of a television camera whenever they can or go on Fox to talk about "leaks" coming from the committee investigation. And it's all lies. There are no leaks.

I think there are some leaks, but so what? The fact we know a diplomat told Congress that Giuliani was called a 'walking time bomb' or something, how is that a bad thing? Also, we don't know whether Republicans are leaking, and then pointing at the leak to say 'see, Democrats are leaking'. Cheney used to pull similar crap, leaking to the NY Times and then pointing to the story as independent corroboration for his position.

The democrats are the party of real patriotism and allegiance to the rule of law and the Constitution and that's the format and basis under which they have conducted themselves from the first day Trump took office. Deal with it.

Well said. It should be said more for our low-information citizens, many who consume propaganda.

 

[Craig234]

All gerrymandering is is subverting the will of the people. Anyone that allows their own politicians to gerrymander is part of the problem.

Pretty much sleaze.

Since when have Republicans not supported ANYTHING that gives them power, other than SOMETIMES not approving of direct crimes like ballot stuffing when caught, no matter how wrong, how anti-Democratic, how blatantly corrupt? It's a very long list of things they support - Gerrymandering is no exception.

Simply because they don't ADMIT how corrupt they are, it's as if they get a pass for it. It would be like ISIL doing all the things they do, but simply saying they're against terrorism, and suddenly being seen by many as 'not terrorist'. It's amazing how simple denial and lies prevent accountability. trump does the same thing. "NO QUID PRO QUO!" "NO OBSTRUCTION!" He just shouts the denial lies and some people fall for it.

 

[Obscurity]

What? Fox News and the rest were created to counter the bias of the left media which have been in power for decades.

What a bunch of contrived nonsense this is. You have zero evidence to support the notion the media is left, at all, and again, you know that.

The media is CORPORATIST. Corporatism INSISTS that you be socially liberal to appeal to as many consumers as possible. Is that all you guys give a **** about? Who ****s who and how often and where?

Truly pathetic.

 

[Linc]

Right.

The same federal gerrymanders written in 2011 still exist for the 2020 elections, except in FL, GA, NC, PA and VA on the CD level, where they’ve been thrown out, all GOP.

State level gerrymanders thrown out — VA, TX, PA, NC, MT, MI, ME, KY, GA, FL — again, all GOP maps. Only DEM Maryland had both federal and state maps thrown out.

This certainly doesn’t include states not challenged. Imagine, Alabama elects a Democratic Senator where 6 out of 7 CDs are GOP. Btw, all 6 GOP CDs voted for Roy Moore.

 

[Obscurity]

LOL. But that's exactly what you wanted them to do in this case!

No, that's not what I want them to do. What I want to happen when it comes to gerrymandering is STATE control via non-partisan districting boards which are absolutely constitutional. Only you guys want to keep the current system because you have a gridlock on plenty of states and you know it.

you guys are so transparent it's hilarious.

 

[Linc]

The Democrats are on a path to allow themselves to be manipulated out of existence. The ineptness of that party never ceases to amaze me.

That started with Roberts and Alito getting on this court last decade, thanks to third party voters in 2000. Sound familiar?

 

[humbolt]

We don't do no gerrymandering around here. We do what's called salamandering. Completely different. I actually vote in Connecticut.

I agree with the SC. If you don't like the politicians in your state who practice gerrymandering, vote 'em out. Pass a law. Quit complaining. Do something besides bitching.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And thirdly, the fairness doctrine, with the tiny effect it had, was only applicable to broadcast networks, not cable channels - so outlets like Fox would not be affected even if it had not been repealed.

Partly right and partly wrong.
The Fairness Doctrine had an enormous effect. That's where you're wrong, sorry.
But you're absolutely right about the fact that the Fairness Doctrine exclusively hinged around licensees who operated broadcast transmitters.
If you were not spewing out radio energy into the airwaves, you were not subject to license renewal considerations governed by the Fairness Doctrine. The crux of the doctrine was that of "public service in the public interest" for television broadcast licensees.
Cable news channels do not operate transmitters, thus they are not governed and never were. You're right.

The reason the doctrine had such an enormous effect is because at the time it was coined, there was no such thing as cable news channels.
You either printed a newspaper, went on the radio or went on OTA (over the air) TV.
PERIOD.

 

[Lisa]

5-4 decision, conservative majority. Elections have consequences.

The decision....
“Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Court’s other four conservatives, wrote in the 5-4 Rucho v. Common Cause decision. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”

What is the point of an election if the votes don't count equally because of gerrymandering? This decision nullifies the voice of the people whose districts are gerrymandered. If a person's district is wildly stacked with republicans because of gerrymandering then democrats in the district don't have an equal voice because more than 50% of them can vote and their vote is still nullified.

The courts do have the right to make these decisions because it goes to the core of constitutional interpretation that was established in Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Lisa]

We don't do no gerrymandering around here. We do what's called salamandering. Completely different. I actually vote in Connecticut.

I agree with the SC. If you don't like the politicians in your state who practice gerrymandering, vote 'em out. Pass a law. Quit complaining. Do something besides bitching.

If the district is already gerrymandered then it is difficult to impossible to vote them out. That is the core reason to gerrymander as a way to protect political power for the party that determined the unequal district boundaries.

 

[Craig234]

The Fairness Doctrine had an enormous effect.

We agree on the rest, but I'd like to see evidence for your claim, which I disagree with. Not that the coverage has changed - it has, for the reasons I listed - but that the Fairness Doctrine specifically had the very large effect you claim.

 

[humbolt]

If the district is already gerrymandered then it is difficult to impossible to vote them out. That is the core reason to gerrymander as a way to protect political power for the party that determined the unequal district boundaries.

I understand, but as the SC stated, it's a political problem as it currently exists, and not a legsl one.

It's also a problem that's typically fine if your preferred party is the one doing it, but a travesty if the other guys are. Changing the system would require an even-handedness not evident in current politics.

 

[Craig234]

It is within their power to toss out gerrymandering, as I said.

Which apparently four of the nine tried to do. I've said before, the courts are one of the most harmful single effects of electing Republicans, if not the most harmful.

 

[Craig234]

I disagree that that's the job. Legislating is the realm of the legislative branch. Not the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch was recognized as the least powerful of all branches and was suggested to be the least controversial; Leftists are late to the game. The republicans realized early how pivotal the church of law is, just like every other mode of function for them. From on high the criminal court issues edicts and declarations that are on their face absurd; money=speech, fictitious entities=people, Private medical decisions=fodder for religious zealots, discrimination=enabled theocratic fervor, etc.

The judicial branch was never intended to act in this fashion.

So, it's your position, that when the constitution says Congress shall pass no law respecting speech, and Congress writes a law saying "it's illegal for newspapers to quote Democrats", that the court's job is to not do anything about that law. The law is Congress' job, you say.

 

[jnug]

Well I have not looked at the filings for this particular gerrymandering case for awhile. But if I have the right case in mind, the brief broken down to its least common denominator was specific to political gerrymandering. In other words, gerrymandering with a racial bias or a cultural bias is still a problem. The SC again assuming I have the case right is not determining that all gerrymandering is OK. It is simply compelling those that want to bring gerrymandering cases bring then on the basis of racial or cultural bias or some other bias other than political.

Not a great decision IMO. However, not nearly as idiotic and baseless as Citizens United.

 

[Lisa]

I understand, but as the SC stated, it's a political problem as it currently exists, and not a legal one.

It's also a problem that's typically fine if your preferred party is the one doing it, but a travesty if the other guys are. Changing the system would require an even-handedness not evident in current politics.

The SCOTUS hasn't been doing its job so that problem exists. Political parties have too much power and they need to be reigned in. How can the people reign the political parties in when our votes don't count equally because of political shenanigans in the voting process.?

The SCOTUS does rule on political issues because at its core is an issue of the power of each vote being equal. Marbury v. Madison was about a political appointment.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You don't even know what a ****ing marxist is, in your theocratic fascistic perspective, so please, spare us the indignity of reading your social conservative agitprop.

Fascism and theocracy are incompatible value systems

 

[Obscurity]

Fascism and theocracy are incompatible value systems

Theocracy -is- fascism.

 

[Athanasius68]

Do you know how wrong you are. In my state we had an election where the GOP got 45% of the votes for our Assembly, but got 55% of the seats. I guess you would will call that an excuse for losing, but I call it gerrymandering, big time. On now this GOP SCOTUS has made it legal.

No it hasn't. It has said that your STATE will decide how to apportion its districts.
Go to your state capital and argue there.