Reply With Quote
I bet it's 5-4 allowing partisan gerrymandering, or even 6-3 if Notorious RBG can't hold on.
Will be VRWC-paid-for about "free speech", etc, etc.
Republicans got lucky, and were really good at cheating that may be about to end.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politi....html?adkey=bnWashington (CNN)The Supreme Court will take up the most important gerrymandering case in more than a decade, it announced Monday.
The case involves district lines in Wisconsin that challengers say were drawn uncons utionally to benefit Republicans. The case could have a major impact on how district lines are drawn up nationwide.
The court has said that too much partisanship in map drawing is illegal, but it has never said how much is too much.
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN that this case could have "enormous ramifications."
Does gerrymandering cause polarization?
"Although a majority of the court has suggested that states can violate the Cons ution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the cons utional line. In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line," he told CNN.
------------------------------------------------------
A couple of things:
It is bad when Democrats do it too, and yes they do it. They shouldn't and neither should the GOP.
Both sides don't do it to an equal degree. If you think they are equal in this regard, you are wrong.
If you think the GOP doesn't do it at all, skip to the 8:26 mark, to hear a Republican official claim rather strongly that their redistricting map was very definitely done for purely partisan advantage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ
I bet it's 5-4 allowing partisan gerrymandering, or even 6-3 if Notorious RBG can't hold on.
Will be VRWC-paid-for about "free speech", etc, etc.
A republican supreme court isn't going to do .
The problem is that courts have generally been ok with political gerrymandering but have ruled against racial gerrymandering, and the two often overlap
Watch the John Oliver video. The GOP knows this so they had to take the position in front of a court or something that they very specifically were NOT gerrymandering due to race. To do this, they had to explicitly come out and admit what everybody already knew: "It was purely against the Democratic party for political advantage".
One would hope they would be above that.
The computer is working fine, BTW. I did a little overclocking, but am still a bit too chicken to push it.
Finished the Witcher game and have moved on to playing Empyrion (alpha game on steam, sort of like a sci-fi minecraft for grownups)
ive seen it. and courts have generally said politically gerrymandering is ok
They're not
Did you get the good ending on Witcher 3? Never heard of Empyrion. I'm currently playing this ridiculous (in a good way) game called NieR Automata that jumps between an open world hack and slash game, a sidescrolling action game, and a top down shooter. So it's almost like a weird Japanese cross between Witcher 3, Ninja Gaiden, and 1942.The computer is working fine, BTW. I did a little overclocking, but am still a bit too chicken to push it.
Finished the Witcher game and have moved on to playing Empyrion (alpha game on steam, sort of like a sci-fi minecraft for grownups)
Check out the Steam Summer Sale that starts tomorrow. Most years this is a really killer sale, lots of games are likely to be 50% to 90% off.
Last edited by baseline bum; 06-21-2017 at 01:29 PM.
At least 4 would reliably be "below that", it's why they were put on the court.
Supreme Court was cool with Wisconsin gerrymandering.
This was the result on election day:
oh, and the State Assembly will be stripping the powers of the incoming governor -- no more line item veto, for one.
With a Democratic governor this should change for Wisconsin in 2021.
Not that the gerrymandering isn’t bull , but Democrats need to stop crying about it and start doing something about it. The fact so many lean left states like Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania had Republican governors for redistricting in 2011 is simply due to ty voter turnout in the 2010 midterms. There’s no reason blue states should be crying about gerrymandering except if said state is putting forward ty candidates for governor.
Well if that’s the case then ignore my above post, that’s ing bull .
following the NC blueprint. when Republicans lose the top job, hamstring the incoming governor in the lame duck.
it's totally contemptuous of the will of the voters, but totally legal.
The window for redistricting reform is closing fast -- must be in place before the 2020 Census is completed.
Maybe the Dems haven't been paying attention to this because they don't really want the responsibility of governing. Gerrymandering is their number one stumbling block at the state level.
Extraordinary session of WI lege responds to Dem sweep of statewide offices by proposing laws to limit early voting, strip powers from the incoming governor, and schedule the upcoming WI Supreme Court race on a day other than Super Tuesday.
https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/2162684...mpression=true
Roles reversed, what would the GOP call this?
Repugs in NC, WI, MI all have or are staging coups by kneecapping, disempowering incoming Dems after the Repugs lost elections.
If they succeed, expect other red/slave states to emulate.
Voting, as is American democracy, is a ing joke, totally meaningless. BigMoney owns legislators and judges, and if that fails, Repugs ignore voters.
bigger picture: Capitalism is an hetical to democracy. Evidence? look around
What is to be done, comrade?
Start a newspaper, perhaps?
Michigan is attempting to strip the incoming Democratic administration of control over education:
https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sect...ools-democratsBills now being considered in the Michigan House of Representatives during the frantic lame-duck legislative session would create a commission largely appointed by Republicans that would have broad authority over schools. In essence, it would serve as a shadow State Board of Education that would not be accountable to the incoming governor, the elected State Board of Education or the state Department of Education.
And, apparently, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is all in on stacking the commission with his appointees before his Democratic successor takes office.
The bills have flown under the radar in Lansing, with much of the media attention focused on Republican bills aimed at gutting minimum wage and paid sick leave lawsand diluting the authority of incoming Democrats Gov.-elect Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State-elect Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General-elect Dana Nessel.
If passed, the new commission would almost certainly have a huge impact on K-12 education in Michigan ‒ from which schools are closed, to which would get extra money and how much classroom instruction students receive.
“These bills basically strip the next governor of the ability to reform education,” said a person intimately involved in negotiations over the bills who asked not to be identified because he works with both parties. “That’s why we’re jumping up and down over this. It’s such a complete power steal from Whitmer that no one should be participating in this.”
The only thing to be done MUST come from legislatures, and they are 99% corrupted by the oligarchy, esp Federal lege, so there's NO WAY to "get (oligarchy's) money out politics", since legislatures are oligarchy-paid to keep the oligarchy's money in politics.
America is ed and un able, with the non-oligarchy, and the raped environment, in permanent, irreversible decline.
automotive works 40 years ago used to make $35 / hour (current $), now they make $17 / hour, as a prime example of how Capital has totally won the war on Labor.
Good call, spurraider21, SCOTUS rules 5-4 against VA's racial gerrymander.
they ended up ruling on procedural grounds for standing... rather than the merits of the gerrymander itself, so this doesn't necessarily have to do with what i had said in this thread. but if the supreme court followed their own precedent, if they determined that the gerrymander was racially based, then they would have upheld the invalidation as well. they didnt go that far in their analysis (to reiterate, political gerrymandering is legal... racial gerrymandering is illegal)
Thanks for the recap!
Another interesting ruling today also, the SCOTUS reaffirming that private en ies are not subject to the same first amendment standards as the government.
A topic that has been explained ad-nauseum here...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
