Supreme Court upholds 'one person, one vote'

[Kal'Stang]

I didn't say you did, I said you can make any sort of disingenuous claim, from "it sounds like" to my making you do something....anything....to distract from WHAT IS ACTUALLY ARGUED, TO CREATE A DIVERSION...OR TO BAIT.

Which is exactly what you're doing. :shrug: I stated a position based on how things should be and you starting pulling things up that had nothing to do with what I stated.

So yeah, looks like we're done here.

 

[jonny5]

Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.

The court ruled correctly, but the appellants complaint is valid. The solution is for the state to redraw the districts to make it more balanced according to voter population while maintaining minimum deviation from total population. I do like how many people in this thread jumped in without reading, so they could get their Texas/GOP insults in.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Which is exactly what you're doing. :shrug: I stated a position based on how things should be and you starting pulling things up that had nothing to do with what I stated.

So yeah, looks like we're done here.

Complete hypocrisy, I posted a Constitutional lawyer's position, a position I share, a position I argued, to which you responded with reptilian fascism of wanting to punch a person making such an argument, that it "sounded like" an argument for illegal voting, that we shouldn't utilize the writings of experts.....and now you make hypocritical blurts that I was posting non-sequiturs. Your posts are the worst.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The court ruled correctly, but the appellants complaint is valid.

The ability of conservatives to hold to two conflicting ideas is a never ending source of amusement.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Complete hypocrisy, I posted a Constitutional lawyer's position, a position I share, a position I argued, to which you responded with reptilian fascism of wanting to punch a person making such an argument, that it "sounded like" an argument for illegal voting, that we shouldn't utilize the writings of experts.....and now you make hypocritical blurts that I was posting non-sequiturs. Your posts are the worst.

First, you didn't argue that position. You let the person that wrote that article argue that position.

Second, that position is based on legalities of what IS. My argument is based on what it SHOULD BE.

3rd I didn't want to punch the person for arguing what is being discussed in this thread. I wanted to punch him for defending terrorists.

4th: To me it does sound like that (allowing illegal aliens to vote) is what he was wanting in that article of his.

5th: I never said that we shouldn't utilize the writings of experts. I said that that particular person should not be used due to his defense of terrorists. Anyone willing to defend terrorists is not credible and is more than likely someone that is quite willing to twist and spin the law in order to make it come out saying anything and everything so long as it supports what he's trying to do.

6th Everything that you have posted regarding that "expert" is a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It'd be like me arguing that we shouldn't let the children born of illegal alien parents be considered as US citizens and you coming along spouting facts about the United States v Wong Kim Ark case. I'm not arguing about how things ARE. I'm arguing about how things SHOULD BE. Now if I had argued that "legally anchor babies are not citizens" and you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case you would be addressing what I said. Do you see the difference?

 

[faithful_servant]

Representatives represent a total population in their district, not just those eligible to cast a vote.

So take it to the extreme: Let's say that you have a state with ten voting districts and a population of 900,001 with an additional 99,999 illegal immigrants. All of the illegal immigrants live in the same district, which only has one non-illegal immigrant resident. By counting everyone, that one person's vote is worth 100,000 times what the vote of every other person's vote is worth. By only counting the citizens, you get equal impact by every voter.

 

[beefheart]

A very important decision, with an 8-0 consensus.



Seems to be rather obvious, doesn't it? However the Republicans in Texas thought they had a new way to lessen the influence of those who tend to vote for Democratic candidates. They had redrawn voting districts by counting only those persons eligible to vote - no children and no immigrants (legal residents) would be counted in creating "equal" districts. The question then comes down to ""Whether a state is permitted to use some measure other than total population" in the future.

Though they concurred in this decision, Justices Thompson and Alito "agreed that Texas cannot be forced to switch to using only eligible voters in drawing districts, but they said the Constitution does not require that approach.

"The choice is best left for the people of the states to decide for themselves how they should apportion their legislature," Thomas wrote. This of course sets up future battles over representation for all legal residents of this nation.

Texas....nuff' said

 

[Gimmesometruth]

First, you didn't argue that position. You let the person that wrote that article argue that position.

A blatant lie:

Further still, foreign nationals are still protected by the Constitution, ergo, even they have representative interests

Second, that position is based on legalities of what IS. My argument is based on what it SHOULD BE.

Then you are arguing against the Constitution and the interpretations by the court...since the beginning. Let me remind you, this was a unanimous decision by this court.

3rd I didn't want to punch the person for arguing what is being discussed in this thread. I wanted to punch him for defending terrorists.

His argument is for all foreign nationals, it applies to all, and yer reptilian knee jerk reactions are creating a red haze limiting ye ability to understand the point.

4th: To me it does sound like that (allowing illegal aliens to vote) is what he was wanting in that article of his.

Still reaching for that false diversion, you just won't let go...you keep on being that bad actor.

5th: I never said that we shouldn't utilize the writings of experts. I said that that particular person should not be used due to his defense of terrorists.

Lie, you said I should say i in my own words, I did, and then I backed the position with expert analysis.

Anyone willing to defend terrorists is not credible and is more than likely someone that is quite willing to twist and spin the law in order to make it come out saying anything and everything so long as it supports what he's trying to do.

So in yer world, the world you want..."terrorists" should not have their day in court, should not have Constitutional protections....and by extension...neither should any foreign national.

6th Everything that you have posted regarding that "expert" is a non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Because you don't want to see the application, because you want to distract with beating those who argue that any prisoner is entitled to equal protections.

It'd be like me arguing that we shouldn't let the children born of illegal alien parents be considered as US citizens and you coming along spouting facts about the United States v Wong Kim Ark case. I'm not arguing about how things ARE. I'm arguing about how things SHOULD BE. Now if I had argued that "legally anchor babies are not citizens" and you brought up the Wong Kim Ark case you would be addressing what I said. Do you see the difference?

Hint: You don't get to avoid my argument, to disregard the argument made....by saying "I want to engage in fantasy, I want to create my own reality and I get to say you are wrong and I am right because I am writing my own rule for my own world, nanni nanni nanni".

If you want to debate me, we are debating reality, we are debating Constitutional protections, we are debating this case WHICH IS IN THE REAL WORLD.

If you want to engage in pretend fantasy worlds where you go aroung on yer unicorn beating up Constitutional lawyers because they make you sad, fine go do it.....I could care less....just stop quoting me when you know I have no interest in yer teenage Civ5 simulation. Take it to the game thread.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sorry, I just quoted the 14th and showed where it wasn't their right. Might want to read it. Got anything more solid?

As for why do I ask? That should be obvious. 1.6 million illegal aliens in TX alone is going to skew the numbers ALOT. California has over 2 million illegal aliens. Wonder how many republicans would have been elected in California if the democrats didn't have it swayed their way due to gerrymandering.

Wait...tell me now....is this you describing how it is....or yer Civ fantasy world?

 

[faithful_servant]

I agree with SCOTUS. The lines should be drawn based on eligible voters, and people that are actually represented by our politicians. Illegals don't count.

At the same time, lets not pretend that the Texas GOP was doing this for the benefit of illegals. It was gerrymandering and vote splitting, as usual.

When is the Fed going to create a law to stop this kind of crap? Along with the long lines and early poll closures? Are we going to wait until it gets so bad that we need to call in UN observers to make sure our elections are fairly conducted?

VOTE BY MAIL, BABY!!!! We need to go to 100% nationwide Vote By Mail. No more lines, no more exit polls influencing elections, just a straight-forward election process. Give every state a deadline for validating their election results and forbid them by law from releasing the results prior to that deadline. Every vote gets counted no matter what (right now, most states stop counting when it becomes statistically impossible for the remaining votes to change the outcome), so that we know not only the results, but how the nation truly feels about the issues/candidates. When we stop counting early it can leave the impression that the results were overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate/issue than the other, when the truth was that the election was a LOT closer than people were told. For example: You have 100 voters and of the first 60 votes 51 were for Bob Smith, so the counting stopped, but of the last 40 votes 35 were for Sue Jones. Election results that show that Bob got 85% of the votes, but the reality was that Bob only got 54%. We deserve the whole truth, not just what's convenient.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So take it to the extreme: Let's say that you have a state with ten voting districts and a population of 900,001 with an additional 99,999 illegal immigrants. All of the illegal immigrants live in the same district, which only has one non-illegal immigrant resident. By counting everyone, that one person's vote is worth 100,000 times what the vote of every other person's vote is worth. By only counting the citizens, you get equal impact by every voter.

Oh goody....another Civ simulation question! I love fantasy games! I win I win! It is my world to make!

 

[faithful_servant]

A friend of mine is going to be in Austin to have her Judgeship reviewed and I think she is honest. I think she is a honest judge. And we all need to support her not only because she is my friend but more importantly because she is a good judge. And her name is.....Demetria Benson.

This D'Metria Benson??
Dallas County's Worst Judge Has Dragged a Simple Eviction Case on for Five Years | Dallas Observer

...or this one??
Wanted: One Good Democrat To Run Against Judge D’Metria Benson | FrontBurner | D Magazine

... or is it this one???
The Robing Room: TX State Judges

 

[faithful_servant]

Would be really easy to write an algorithm to draw the lines, but neither party will go for it.

A software solution would be so simple that even a Delphi programmer could handle it.

 

[faithful_servant]

Oh goody....another Civ simulation question! I love fantasy games! I win I win! It is my world to make!

Do you even vaguely understand the point I was making? Adding in illegal immigrants to a voting district dilutes the votes of the voters in every other district. By using an extreme example, I was hoping that the less intelligent among us would get the idea. Sadly, I was wrong...

 

[joG]

Today the Supreme Court rejected Texas Republicans' unconstitutional attempt at a power grab, by ruling that illegal aliens and non-citizens cannot be counted for the purpose of drawing legislative districts. Here is the punch line. Texas Republicans, who frequently state that the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, attempted to use the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment here. LMAO.

And this was not a divided vote. It was unanimous. Another defeat for blatant political hackery and attempts to water down minority voting power. Keeping Texas as white as they can was a desperation move from a party that is slowly but surely losing power. All their little tricks and gerrymandering will only prolong the inevitable. Republicans only hope to stay viable in the next decade is to begin to embrace some of the same groups they have been relentlessly attacking. Good luck with that.

NOTE: Roberts and Ginsberg agreeing on something? Who would have thunk it? :mrgreen:

Article is here.

And here is the document of the actual decision.

Actually, they did not reject anything as unconstitutional. It would seem more that the US SC refused to endorse either method exclusively.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Do you even vaguely understand the point I was making?

I understand that you, like stang, want to argue from pure fantasy...but go on....I'll entertain it for now...

Adding in illegal immigrants to a voting district dilutes the votes of the voters in every other district.

False, their votes still count, there vote still determines who represents, the vote did not change because of the % of participants. Further, in yer fantasy example, all those foreign nationals could be non-voting minors, excons and children. Has the voters of other districts had their vote diminished?

By using an extreme example, I was hoping that the less intelligent among us would get the idea. Sadly, I was wrong...

Yer baiting, not debating, you know where to stick it.

 

[Northern Light]

VOTE BY MAIL, BABY!!!! We need to go to 100% nationwide Vote By Mail.

Like nothing could ever go wrong with that.

I guess... but why should people have to do that? There's no sane reason to close a polling station at 5pm. Most people are just getting off work at that time.

 

[faithful_servant]

I understand that you, like stang, want to argue from pure fantasy...but go on....I'll entertain it for now... False, their votes still count, there vote still determines who represents, the vote did not change because of the % of participants. Further, in yer fantasy example, all those foreign nationals could be non-voting minors, excons and children. Has the voters of other districts had their vote diminished? Yer baiting, not debating, you know where to stick it.

It's not fantasy, it's called an example and I CLEARLY stated that it was an extreme example when I made it. It's an illustration of the result of counting illegal immigrants. Doing so dilutes the impact of the voting in the districts with fewer illegal immigrants. When you have a district with a high % of illegal immigrants being counted, the voters in that district carry greater weight that the voters in other districts. It's not just how the overall numbers fall out, but how much impact a single vote has. Yes, I know that this is confusing, you, but at least try to understand and not just make up your mind about the side you want to be on and then ignore everything else except fighting for your side or against the other side.

 

[faithful_servant]

Like nothing could ever go wrong with that.

I guess... but why should people have to do that? There's no sane reason to close a polling station at 5pm. Most people are just getting off work at that time.

That's why ballots get mailed out at least a week prior to the close of voting. That way, you get lots and lots of time to vote. Time to sit down and think about what it is you're voting on. Time to talk to people you trust.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's not fantasy, it's called an example and I CLEARLY stated that it was an extreme example when I made it. It's an illustration of the result of counting illegal immigrants. Doing so dilutes the impact of the voting in the districts with fewer illegal immigrants. When you have a district with a high % of illegal immigrants being counted, the voters in that district carry greater weight that the voters in other districts. It's not just how the overall numbers fall out, but how much impact a single vote has. Yes, I know that this is confusing, you, but at least try to understand and not just make up your mind about the side you want to be on and then ignore everything else except fighting for your side or against the other side.

You don't make any sense, the voting WITHIN a district has not changed because of the participation rate...the vote count remains the same. it has no effect on the vote count in another district. It doesn't change the the power one rep has in a body over another, they both have their vote in their respective bodies. If there is only one eligible voter in a district, that would be the rep himself, and he could have any sort of orientation.

The point is that those wanting non-voters not represented is to cause the voters to only have their views represented, to deny the influence on a representative the views of non-voters...to cause them to not be represented. It ultimately is an attempt to make citizen and non-citizens outside of protections.

 

[faithful_servant]

You don't make any sense, the voting WITHIN a district has not changed because of the participation rate...the vote count remains the same. it has no effect on the vote count in another district. It doesn't change the the power one rep has in a body over another, they both have their vote in their respective bodies. If there is only one eligible voter in a district, that would be the rep himself, and he could have any sort of orientation.

The point is that those wanting non-voters not represented is to cause the voters to only have their views represented, to deny the influence on a representative the views of non-voters...to cause them to not be represented. It ultimately is an attempt to make citizen and non-citizens outside of protections.

So you think that in the case of the extreme example I gave that the vote of the one person carried the same weight as those in the other districts??

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So you think that in the case of the extreme example I gave that the vote of the one person carried the same weight as those in the other districts??

Yes, each vote had the same count, 1. the representative has a mandate to represent the same number of people if the districts contain the same number of people. The only difference is the % of participation. Again, the objective is to diminish any non-voter, no matter their status.

 

[faithful_servant]

Yes, each vote had the same count, 1. the representative has a mandate to represent the same number of people if the districts contain the same number of people. The only difference is the % of participation. Again, the objective is to diminish any non-voter, no matter their status.

In my example, one vote carried 10% of the total weight of all the votes. It's not just within the district, but within the entire state that the impact is seen. The objective is to prevent the dilution of votes by the inclusion of illegal immigrants.

 

[Helix]

Would be really easy to write an algorithm to draw the lines, but neither party will go for it.

very true. it's a decent solution, though.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In my example, one vote carried 10% of the total weight of all the votes.

within a district, but it is the same as the effect of voters not voting. it doesn't change the count of those votes.

It's not just within the district, but within the entire state that the impact is seen.

The "impact" is that there is a larger number of districts and reps, the vote still counts as one. What is desired is a greater level of influence on the rep.....but you have that since in yer pov the voter is more important to the rep.

The objective is to prevent the dilution of votes by the inclusion of illegal immigrants.

you haven't shown it. in fact, the vote in a district carries more weight, according to you.