Supreme Court vs. The People

Posted by: NW Ponderer

Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/27/19 02:37 PM

I am prepared to be very depressed today. Two decisions expected today may put the final nail in the coffin of "free and fair" elections in the United States. The first nail was just hammered in when the Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is not a Constitutional issue. The next question is what the Court does with the Census.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/27/19 03:04 PM

Apparently the Court believes parties of irrelevance should control Congressional politics.

It sounds so Constitutional.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/27/19 03:22 PM

I'm not just depressed, frankly, I'm really pissed. CJ Roberts basically told the Republican party "Hey, I'm with you guys on everything, but you gotta give me something to work with here." So, he goes along with partisan gerrymandering (foreclosing the issue for the future, or trying to), and remanding the census question to give them a second shot at creating a different pretext. Get REAL! Once the pretext has been established, the question is answered. You don't get a second bite at the rotten apple.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/27/19 03:53 PM

Once massive immigration reform has occurred the citizenship question won't be a problem. At present, using it as a weapon against non-citizens is just wrong as hell.

Gerrymandering, however, is wrong on every level. Has the constitution nothing to say at all about free and fair elections? Is it a state issue that should have been resolved and eliminated long ago?

Are our Republican counterparts so bereft of all sense of decency and fair play that they believe there is something good and right about cheating to win elections?

Sadly I am completely uninformed as far as election laws and whether they are federal or state mandated. I'm pretty well read up on what assh*les conservatives can be though.....
Posted by: logtroll

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/27/19 11:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Are our Republican counterparts so bereft of all sense of decency and fair play that they believe there is something good and right about cheating to win elections?

Yes.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/28/19 06:58 AM

The gerrymandering issue is far from closed: Each state can outlaw it, even for US representative districts. Some states actually have, and the Supreme Court let the state supreme court decisions stand as it was a state issue. So any state with a liberal supreme court can get a case to them, and get a decision that it violates the state constitution.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/28/19 04:04 PM

Maybe I missed something here.

Quote:
Each state can outlaw it
No Republican state will outlaw it as it guarantees their continued political control of the several states AND it guarantees they will continue to have a significant presence in Congress



Quote:
So any state with a liberal supreme court
No Republican state has a liberal court ergo any case demanding gerrymandering cease for whatever reason will be thrown out.

You can not win with the fascists. They have rigged the system in their favor. The change will be in 2 or 3 generations.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/28/19 06:09 PM

Even red states are not made up entirely of Republicans. If it can be proven that partisan redistricting is un-constitutional at a state level then lawsuits, ballot initiatives, and general public grumbling can get districts redrawn.

"Gerrymandering" in and of itself, is a shameful old tactic that really has no place in this century. The Supremes didn't say it was a good thing, they just said it wasn't an un-Constitutional thing.

It could probably be constitutionally legislated into illegality though.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/29/19 07:46 AM

At least one state already has. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it violates the state constitution, and the US Supreme Court refused to intervene. Gerrymandering by Republicans yields more US House seats, but it has no effect on the state Governor's office. A state can be very "red" in terms of US House seats and still have a democratic majority in their state senate. That's kind of the point of gerrymandering: To overcome the democratic majority. Since everybody in the state votes for Governor, and state supreme courts are either selected by the governor or elected state-wide the gerrymandering does not affect the state supreme court makeup.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/29/19 03:58 PM

Florida has made some headway in that regard too, but the battle has been fierce.
Quote:
In its majority opinion Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court referenced Florida’s Constitution in asserting that states have the ability to solve this issue themselves
Miami Herald
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/30/19 02:06 PM

Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Similar to the hyperventilating going on with the 'Russia Meddling' (T.M.) would somebody please explain how this changes anything?
The candidate nominating process, particularly in the Democratic party, is just as rigged as far as I can tell, but here it goes again. A strange indignation that has time for party rivalries and competition but none for candidate selections.

Looks like a contradiction.
Smells like hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/30/19 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Looks like a contradiction.
Smells like hypocrisy.


A Jaundice Eye?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/30/19 05:21 PM

What exactly is being argued about with this latest supposed indignation.

Who is the aggrieved and why is it only focused on this particular aspect of a spectrum of undemocratic practices.....

What's the fuss about really?

Just asking.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 06/30/19 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
What exactly is being argued about with this latest supposed indignation.

Who is the aggrieved and why is it only focused on this particular aspect of a spectrum of undemocratic practices.....

What's the fuss about really?

Just asking.
I have a hard time believing you are serious here. Who are aggrieved here are the voters, of all stripes, whose choice and voting power is being removed by partisan actors. You do recognize how gerrymandering works, right? Your complaints about political party workings are inapposite. What is relevant is the ability of any party to effectively eliminate democratic elections. Put it this way: until there is a massive political shift in any particular jurisdiction, the currently dominant party (primarily Republican), even in the electoral minority, can entrench their candidates in office without meaningful recourse by their electorate. Fewer than half the States allow citizen initiatives, and even fewer for constitutional amendment.

North Carolina is virtually a 50-50 State, yet its delegation is 10-3 because of gerrymandering. That cannot change so long as the citizenry cannot change the makeup of the legislature. In the best scenario such change will be incremental - a seat here or there - but not wholesale. It will require a sea change politically, and that may not occur in our lifetimes, or our children's.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/01/19 02:15 PM

Why not. Really, whats the difference with voters being disenfranchised, if that is what were talking about here?
This is Amerika where the political history is voter disenfranchisement. You think it's not been happening on the left for years?
Sure, gerrymandering will work it's way into politics in a myriad of ways but it's the same ol' same ol' for the currently disenfranchised.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/01/19 02:30 PM

Quote:
Who are aggrieved here are the voters, of all stripes, whose choice and voting power is being removed by partisan actors.

As they have ever been aggrieved by wealthy partisans in smoke filled rooms rigging things in their own favor. There is nothing new or surprising about this decision, especially in this politically charged and partisan era.

We will rise above Trump as the Germans have risen above Hitler. Unfortunately we will witness a lot more atrocities before some semblance of justice prevails.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/04/19 07:10 AM

I read a nice article on Slate, saying that Democrats can gerrymander the hell out of blue states now and counter all the Republican gerrymandering. The Supreme Court says it is okay, so stop trying to be fair and go for it! Democrats have mostly been promoting fair redistricting recently, but with the history of Republican mischief (not to mention the new evidence) they can stop their unilateral disarmament policy.

Funny thing is that US House Representatives don't do the redistricting. State politicians do, and state supreme courts ultimately rule on the map acceptability. So it is an imperfect feedback loop: If you have a Democratic majority in a state, you can get new district lines drawn to favor Democrats. And to get a Democratic majority elected in a state, maybe all you need is a bunch of Republican overreach and criminality at the highest levels.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/04/19 03:01 PM

Quote:
State Governors Republican 27-23
State Senates Republican 32-18
State Houses Republican 30-19-1


Quote:
If you have a Democratic majority in a state, you can get new district lines drawn to favor Democrats. And to get a Democratic majority elected in a state

So if pigs can fly ...

While this may appear to be simple to turn around, I suspect the real problem is deep seated and requires at least 3 generations of education to eliminate ignorance and it's corollary bigotry. Take your statement and replace "Democrat" with "Republican". This will not be easy nor simple.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/04/19 03:38 PM

It took six years of legal battles and public outcry here.

It also took six years of legal battles for a Florida couple to win the right to grow vegetables in their front yard...so, yeah. It could easily take several generations for any real positive change to occur.

But it will...Trump is a setback but, barring nuclear war or global climate catastrophe, he is a setback we can overcome. He is, in fact, a setback we should be able to capitalize on.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/04/19 04:05 PM

Quote:
Take your statement and replace "Democrat" with "Republican".


Republicans have already been doing this for decades. Actually, both Parties did it for decades, until Democrats decided they were too noble to gerrymander several years back. And look at the result.

In politics nobility is nice, but you have to actually win to make any changes.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/04/19 04:47 PM

But if you must become as corrupt as the opposition to win then there's really little point in it.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 07/05/19 03:03 AM

The Supreme Court has said it's not corrupt, and they pretty much have the last word on any legal issue. They said it's not nice, but if they wanted it to be illegal they would have said so. Now everybody has to live with it, even if it is morally bankrupt and damages the reputation of the court. Their choice!
Posted by: Senator Hatrack

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/10/19 11:02 PM

Gerrymandering existed before either political party did. It has been used and abused by both of them. Gov. Patrick Henry of Virginia gerrymandered a district in an attempt to prevent James Madison from being elected to Congress. Had Henry been successful we would not have had our Bill of Rights. (Madison is the author of them, with a lot of help and advice.) While the Supreme Court decided that it is not a Constitutional issue it's doing so is not a nail in the coffin of free and fair elections. Gerrymandering does make them more difficult to achieve but throughout American history on the whole we have had free and fair elections. The practice of gerrymandering is much better than what was done in the 1850's in (Bloody) Kansas.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 12:56 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
What exactly is being argued about with this latest supposed indignation.

Who is the aggrieved and why is it only focused on this particular aspect of a spectrum of undemocratic practices.....

What's the fuss about really?

Just asking.


Do you fuss about incrementalism, do you fuss about punching left while moving right, do you fuss about parties refusing to listen to the will of the people?

But you're blind to gerrymandering?

:ohsnap:
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 01:34 AM

Quote:
Gerrymandering existed before either political party did.

And murder existed before there was a law against it. As thinking, evolving beasts we don't say "people have always killed people, nothing you can do about it." We f*cking do something about it.
Supreme court had the chance and chose not to.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
What exactly is being argued about with this latest supposed indignation.

Who is the aggrieved and why is it only focused on this particular aspect of a spectrum of undemocratic practices.....

What's the fuss about really?

Just asking.


Do you fuss about incrementalism, do you fuss about punching left while moving right, do you fuss about parties refusing to listen to the will of the people?

But you're blind to gerrymandering?

:ohsnap:


jeebuz,
A 1 1/2 month pause responding to a post? You really do have a bug up your behind.
What are you trying to say?
The mocking I get but your point escapes me.

Was there one?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 03:58 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
What exactly is being argued about with this latest supposed indignation.

Who is the aggrieved and why is it only focused on this particular aspect of a spectrum of undemocratic practices.....

What's the fuss about really?

Just asking.


Do you fuss about incrementalism, do you fuss about punching left while moving right, do you fuss about parties refusing to listen to the will of the people?

But you're blind to gerrymandering?

:ohsnap:


jeebuz,
A 1 1/2 month pause responding to a post? You really do have a bug up your behind.
What are you trying to say?
The mocking I get but your point escapes me.

Was there one?



Well since you don't think there's much of a fuss, then I can understand you not seeing the point. What I don't get is why you think I necroed an old thread just to pick on you. It came back to life today and I scrolled up to get back in sync with the recent posts.

What's the fuss about? Heh, you figure it out.
The subject is gerrymandering.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 04:13 AM

The DCCC is blacklisting campaign shops and vendors from ever doing business with the party if they do business with a primary challenger.- Crickets from you as most everyone else here.

Supreme court hands down a ruling on gerrymandering that goes against one party- nashing of teeth, rending of garments, 'end of democracy!' shouts.

What part of that observation seems incorrect to you?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 04:17 AM

The Supreme Court actually just left it up to the states. More than one state supreme court has said it is unconstitutional because it violates their state constitution. All you need to do is get a liberal majority on your state court and then bring them a gerrymandering case. They will make it illegal in your state.

Existing gerrymanders can't affect any state's supreme court makeup. Some states pick supremes by popular vote and some have the governor pick them. And the governor is picked by state-wide popular vote. So it is entirely possible to outlaw gerrymandering state-by-state.

I think we are going to see the problem with gerrymandering in 2020: When you diddle the district boundaries to win as many districts as possible by 5% it is a disaster when you are down by 10%. There are no "safe" districts. Some heavily gerrymandered states will wind up with zero Republican Representatives.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 04:17 AM

""If the DCCC enacts this policy to blacklist vendors who work with challengers, we risk undermining an entire universe of potential candidates and vendors - especially women and people of color - whose ideas, energy, and innovation need a place in our party," Pressley wrote in a lengthy thread about the issue.

"[W]e cannot credibly lay claim to prioritizing diversity & inclusion when institutions like the DCCC implement policies that threaten to silence new voices and historically marginalized communities," she added."

Article


I still say it smells of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 06:24 PM

So who is this DCCC and why should I care about their silly rules?

Hypocrisy in politics! **Gasps** Say it aint so!
ROTFMOL
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 06:41 PM

Finally!

Someone else can admit to how phony, in it's essence, lib political posturing is and always has been.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Finally!

Someone else can admit to how phony, in it's essence, lib political posturing is and always has been.



As opposed to...?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/11/19 08:11 PM

Republicans and it pains me to admit to that.
Posted by: itstarted

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/12/19 06:18 PM

Let's cut some slack here... Just a fact.

The Average IQ in the US is 100... meaning half of the people have IQ's of under 100. For every person above 100, there is one below.

This chart may explain a lot...

Quote:
Over 140 - Genius or near genius

120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence

110 - 119 - Superior intelligence

90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence

80 - 89 - Dullness

70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency

Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness


Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/12/19 10:14 PM

I'd love to see a Trump IQ test. He's done his best to keep his grades secret, but I heard his prep school GPA was 1.9! I also read a comment by one of his professors at Wharton who said he was the dumbest student he has ever taught.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/13/19 05:28 PM

I imagine he was a bright young man, but dyslexic. It would affect his grades and possibly make him seem as dumb as a post to an educator.
But he had the chops to stay sober, stay alive, and become the POTUS.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/14/19 05:33 AM

Quote:
the chops


I think you meant "the money" to make it through his college classes and get a diploma. It's amazing what a few million dollars can do, if you spread it around properly.

But the dyslexic or even illiterate can hire people to read the textbook to them. Then the professor wouldn't say they are dumb. Failing to do that when you have the money WOULD be dumb. The professor was talking about Trump's lack of understanding the basic course matter.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/14/19 03:33 PM

Returning to the topic of the thread...
Gerrymandering is just one aspect of the Supreme Court's partisan and anti-democratic (small d) agenda. In the past, supreme court jurists saw themselves as the last bastion in protecting individual rights and liberties. With this court, that is decidedly not so. Instead of shielding minorities and individuals with constitutional principles, they are actively wielding constitutional language as a sword against individual interests. In other words, the gerrymandering case is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Posted by: Greger

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/14/19 04:44 PM

Indeed. If the Supreme Court can not even be fair judges of what is right and wrong, then I'm not sure I trust any of their decisions.
And when the American people can no longer trust the supreme court to keep their best interests at heart then the court itself begins to lose relevance. It becomes merely another mouthpiece for corporate America.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: Supreme Court vs. The People - 08/14/19 08:13 PM

I rather like the way it was stated in one movie ... "is it true half the people you meet are below average intelligence?"

Originally Posted By: https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq
The average IQ in the United States is 98.Apr 10, 2018