Reply With Quote
(from the Virginia ruling)
"Not only can dogs play basketball, you have to beat the dog by 25 pts or it doesn't count and the dog wins"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opin...wp/1260127.pdf
prurient interest?Another Democrat Sucker for Redistricting goes dow...er, resigns.
Context:
Utah leaders to probe relationship between Supreme Court justice, redistricting lawyer
what's with the capitalization?
(from the Virginia ruling)
"Not only can dogs play basketball, you have to beat the dog by 25 pts or it doesn't count and the dog wins"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opin...wp/1260127.pdf
like this, Yoni
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/...the-clock.html
the dissent thinks the majority wields a creative definition of "election" under VA law
https://statehouseaction.substack.co...ourt-goes-fullAnyway, then the justices go on to discuss Virginia’s cons utional amendment process, which is pretty straightforward:
- An amendment must pass a majority of both the House and Senate once, then there must be a House of Delegates (read: any odd year) election, and then the amendment has to pass the full legislature again before voters get to approve or reject it at the ballot box.
But then the real bull starts.
- The four justices then go on to blithely redefine “election” as something entirely separate from “election day.”
- Given that the actual text of the Virginia cons ution and state code in no way make this distinction, the rest of the majority opinion involves some legal acrobatics to justify their creativity.
But, fwiw, the dissentclaps back pretty hard.
- On page 30 of the opinion, the dissenting three justices break out the switches and spank their colleagues for their obvious wrongness:
... today the majority has broadened the meaning of the word “election,” as used in the Virginia Cons ution, to include the early voting period. This is in direct conflict with how both Virginia and federal law define an election.These justices saw the majority’s legal acrobatics and called them out for what they were.
By focusing on the legislative history, dictionary definitions, and how legal scholars might interpret the term “election,” the majority fails to apply the most basic tenet of interpretation of cons utional provisions: looking to the language of the cons ution itself.
Then the minority points out that the early voting period the majority justices up and decided now count as part of the “election” can’t actually exist without defining the election as one day.
Under the plain language of the statute, early voting begins “on the forty-fifth day prior to any election and shall continue until 5:00 p.m. on the Saturday immediately preceding the election.” Code § 24.2-701.1(A) (emphasis added).
"shut up boy"
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYFyM...Nuc25kaQ%3D%3D
old enough to vote and enlist in the US armed forces, but not to walk into a bar
"If you resurrected Ulysses S. Grant...and told him, 'hey, the Supreme Court is nullifying the 15th Amendment again'...he would be like, 'yeah, that sounds right.' He'd probably be surprised it was Republicans, but that's about it."
South Carolina is 26% black. Louisiana is 33%. Mississippi is 37%.
the white people party can do partisan redistricting, but Democrats can't
Himself is the only person he wants to talk to here
I guess we'll see what happens.
How is Virginia different than the Red states engaging in redistricting now?
Virginia wanted to Virtue Signal that they were anti-gerrymandering (which they're not, they just wanted to lock in the current gerrymander they approved of) so, a couple of years back, they passed a cons utional amendment limiting gerrymandering.
Then, just to show the left believes in nothing they claim to believe, they attempted to undo that amendment through a rushed and uncons utional process.
The other states always left this power in the hands of the legislature, so the legislature is able to change the maps with a vote.
Another stupid objection they keep on making: If this process was deficient from the very beginning -- which the Court ruled it was -- why didn't the Court make this ruling earlier?
This is a hilarious one. The Virginia Supreme Court was going to rule on whether this process was adequate or defective -- but the Democrats pushing the new map insisted that it was illegal for the Court to rule on the referendum before the referendum had been voted on and was entirely concluded.
The Democrats themselves insisted that the Court had no power to rule on this except after the referendum was voted on and was in the process of being implemented.
The Court read the Democrats' arguments and... agreed.
From the ruling that -slapped Virginia Democrats, Obama, and Jeffries.
yoni really wants slavery back.
Or just apartheid.
Whatever works.
the same set of facts were before the VA Supreme Court before the vote and they let the vote go forward
the only thing different after the vote was Republicans lost the vote
overturning your own state cons ution on a dime with a well-timed off-season ballot measure in the first place is what's bull . same for California. Only difference is the California supreme court is stacked with far left yes men and women 100% appointed by Democrat governors and approved by the deep-blue Democrat state trifecta there. In Virginia the state supreme court is stacked with moderates because before the end of 2025 the Dems never really had a strong trifecta.
Neither.
He wants more black people to vote Republican and be more like White Republicans in terms of partisan ideology and the way they vote.
He isn't against black people because of their skin color.
He is against the white leftists brainwashing blacks into voting with them since the three-fifths era. The whole plot of "Get Out" was rich white/white jew liberals enslaving black people and taking over their bodies. It's commonplace. White liberals don't give two s about black people beyond the extent of their votes. They never have and never will.
redistricted at 0%-9% strength, that's democracy now?Rep. Ralph Norman: "Jim Clyburn, I like him personally, but he does not represent the rest of South Carolina, which is conservative. His district is close to 47% African American."
if polling like this is anywhere close to predictive for November, it doesn't really matter what Rs do
Yeah we saw the exact inverse in May 2022 a month before Dobbs, and then gas prices and inflation went down by October and the dems saved face
I think something similar happens this year. More likely to be 2022 in reverse than 2006 all over again. 2006 was pre polarization.
crazypants retaliation for -- being the minority and opposing racist redistricting?
Watching a series of former Confederate states rush to eliminate any vestige of black representation in the House pretty much answers the question whether the Voting Rights Act was still necessary.
SCOTUS said Callais didn't touch the judgment in Allen, but remanded it anyway with predictable results
https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-poli...court-purcell/
The lower court did not reach its conclusion lightly: Last May, a three-judge Alabama district court panel held an 11-day trial featuring dozens of witnesses and hundreds of exhibits before it explained, in a unanimous 268-page opinion, that “try as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength.”
it’s facially insane that the SCOTUS’s position is that the interest of a political party—an en y with no special cons utional protection—in gerrymandering is more important than black people’s right to vote
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
