Supreme Court upholds 'one person, one vote'

[poweRob]

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.

They will simply deny it ever happened. You just watch.

 

[poweRob]

gerrymandering needs to be banned nationwide, and states that put obstacles in front of voting like long lines / limiting early voting should have control of their elections taken away from them temporarily and handled federally until they get their **** together. those kinds of practices are just shameful and undemocratic.

Change the House of Representatives into a parliament. No districts needed.

 

[poweRob]

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

The more complicated, the less interest people will have to contest it.

 

[Fishking]

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.

I don't think you get to complain about anyone's posting when you're dehumanizing another person by calling them reptilian and knuckle-dragging.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I don't think you get to complain about anyone's posting when you're dehumanizing another person by calling them reptilian and knuckle-dragging.

I don't think yer reading very well, "responding with reptilian fascism of wanting to punch a person" describes their expression, what they write....not their person. A person expressing the need to beat another for their views on Constitutional rights.....has dehumanized themselves.

 

[danarhea]

They will simply deny it ever happened. You just watch.

They already are. What Texas wanted to do was illegal, but one of the hacks has already told me that I am wrong and that SCOTUS only upheld existing law. But that was not my point. My point is that Texas wanted an illegal law.

 

[poweRob]

They already are. What Texas wanted to do was illegal, but one of the hacks has already told me that I am wrong and that SCOTUS only upheld existing law. But that was not my point. My point is that Texas wanted an illegal law.

If it goes as it has been, they will deny it at first then blame the other side for doing it later using projection as an offensive tool that also hides their work. Kind of like the two kids in the back seat of the car and one hits the other then screams the he just got hit.

 

[jonny5]

They already are. What Texas wanted to do was illegal, but one of the hacks has already told me that I am wrong and that SCOTUS only upheld existing law. But that was not my point. My point is that Texas wanted an illegal law.

No law was involved. The case only involves trying to throw out poorly representative state senate districts. It doesnt even have anything to do with federal elections. This was entirely a state matter. All the SC did was say 'this isnt an issue for the SC'

(d) Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal
the infirmity of appellants’ claim, this Court need not resolve whether,
as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize votereligible
population rather than total population.

 

[danarhea]

No law was involved. The case only involves trying to throw out poorly representative state senate districts. It doesnt even have anything to do with federal elections. This was entirely a state matter. All the SC did was say 'this isnt an issue for the SC'

(d) Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal
the infirmity of appellants’ claim, this Court need not resolve whether,
as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize votereligible
population rather than total population.

No EXISTING law was involved..... Just the state of Texas opposing what does exist, so they could then put a law into place that is clearly unconstitutional. Their challenge was doomed from the start because the law they want to pass is clearly illegal. But spin it some more if you'd like.

And your posting was what Clarence Thomas wrote, which is not the majority opinion. Roberts and Kennedy both signed on to the majority opinion, which was written by Ginsburg. Good luck with that. And, once again, nice try at spin doctoring..... FAIL.

 

[JumpinJack]

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.

Roberts, heck! THOMAS and Ginsberg agreeing? Hell has frozen over.

 

[Linc]

As long as the GOP Senate continues to prevent a 9th Justice, Roberts and Kennedy will continue to flex their "independent" wings .

 

[danarhea]

Roberts, heck! THOMAS and Ginsberg agreeing? Hell has frozen over.

Thomas doesn't exactly agree. While signing on to the decision, he wrote a minority opinion giving circumstances in which the Constitution CAN be violated.

 

[JumpinJack]

Thomas doesn't exactly agree. While signing on to the decision, he wrote a minority opinion giving circumstances in which the Constitution CAN be violated.

Well, he agreed with the decision, but possibly for different reasons. It was a unanimous decision.

 

[azgreg]

Roberts, heck! THOMAS and Ginsberg agreeing? Hell has frozen over.

Thomas doesn't exactly agree. While signing on to the decision, he wrote a minority opinion giving circumstances in which the Constitution CAN be violated.

Well, he agreed with the decision, but possibly for different reasons. It was a unanimous decision.

You'd be surprised how often the justices agree. Over half the decisions are unanimous.

 

[jamesrage]

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.

What should be obvious is that non-citizens and illegals shouldn't be counted when drawing up district maps. Because those people can't vote and they are not citizens. This ruling will encourage more sanctuary cities.

 

[jamesrage]

As long as the GOP Senate continues to prevent a 9th Justice, Roberts and Kennedy will continue to flex their "independent" wings .

SO your solution is for the GOP to confirm another liberal justice to flex his independent wings?

 

[Linc]

SO your solution is for the GOP to confirm another liberal justice to flex his independent wings?

I don't remember Majority Leader George Mitchell filibustering Clarence Thomas, let alone denying him a meeting or a hearing.
And oh yes--McConnell's favorite--give our guy an up-and-down vote but not yours.

This unprecedented obstruction will further deepen the Grand Canyon we already have in DC.
And simply be repeated by DEMs if a GOP wins the POTUS.

I hope losing the Senate is worth a 4-4 court that is proving to be anything but a 4-4 court.
Once they all die off, we'll have a 0-0 court .

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't remember Majority Leader George Mitchell filibustering Clarence Thomas, let alone denying him a meeting or a hearing.
And oh yes--McConnell's favorite--give our guy an up-and-down vote but not yours.

This unprecedented obstruction will further deepen the Grand Canyon we already have in DC.
And simply be repeated by DEMs if a GOP wins the POTUS.

I hope losing the Senate is worth a 4-4 court that is proving to be anything but a 4-4 court.
Once they all die off, we'll have a 0-0 court .

I remember Biden, Schumer, Reid, and Obama being against any hearings at the end of a Republican's term in the White House at various points in their careers. Quit whining about Republicans this and Republicans that if all they are doing is following the playbook the Democrats helped write.

 

[jonny5]

No EXISTING law was involved..... Just the state of Texas opposing what does exist, so they could then put a law into place that is clearly unconstitutional. Their challenge was doomed from the start because the law they want to pass is clearly illegal. But spin it some more if you'd like.

And your posting was what Clarence Thomas wrote, which is not the majority opinion. Roberts and Kennedy both signed on to the majority opinion, which was written by Ginsburg. Good luck with that. And, once again, nice try at spin doctoring..... FAIL.

That was the official opinion. Read it again. Page 2.

SUPER FAIL

 

[American]

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.

So how were they trying to water down the voting power of illegals and non-citizens again?

 

[Somerville]

I remember Biden, Schumer, Reid, and Obama being against any hearings at the end of a Republican's term in the White House at various points in their careers. Quit whining about Republicans this and Republicans that if all they are doing is following the playbook the Democrats helped write.

The ever so small difference between past Dem actions and words in comparison with the present GOP obstruction of the President's nominee: -- the Dems DID HOLD hearings on the nominees, our GOP is refusing even to meet with Merrick Garland. The leadership evidently is laying down some heavy **** in back rooms as a couple Senators who a week ago were at least willing to meet with the nominee are now toeing the party line - NO MEETINGS, NO HEARING.

There is zero precedent for such a failure to do their jobs

 

[Somerville]

So how were they trying to water down the voting power of illegals and non-citizens again?

It's not about "voting power" but rather representation in state and national legislatures. The Texas bill also failed to take into account those citizens who couldn't vote - too young and those who weren't registered to vote.

 

[danarhea]

So how were they trying to water down the voting power of illegals and non-citizens again?

If they want to change the Constitution, then they need to amend it, not violate it.

 

[American]

It's not about "voting power" but rather representation in state and national legislatures. The Texas bill also failed to take into account those citizens who couldn't vote - too young and those who weren't registered to vote.

I'm addressing what the OP said.

 

[American]

If they want to change the Constitution, then they need to amend it, not violate it.

Illegals and non-citizens can't vote, so what are you complaining about?