US Politics

Ekkie Thump said:
Given which party gains the most from gerrymandering it's perfectly evident that in reaching its conclusion the court has already picked a side. Its reasoning is far more incidious than 'can't be seen to be partisan' though. Roberts said the following:



So the real argument is that, while the court recognises as fact that gerrymandering is anti-democratic and unjust, the constitution fails to provide federal recourse. Ergo it isn't properly within the remit of the SCOTUS to make rulings on such matters. Instead the only lawful option was to donate their testicles to the gerrymandered states themselves.
Click to expand...

pure abdication of responsibility at a minimum.

It is the responsibility of the SC to ensure laws are applied equally.
One person one vote and there is no dilution of that vote.
 
I think the real question now is how the Democrats should start doing it in the states where they have a trifecta (governor/state senate/house).


In a bit of snap analysis over at ScotusBlog, Eric Citron says that the partisan gerrymandering ruling is every bit as far-reaching as voting rights advocates feared.

The troublesome concern here is that should, for example, a Republican-led legislature in North Carolina or elsewhere redraw district lines in a way that disenfranchises Democrats, there would be no way to appeal that action beyond the circuit court level (and it seems that the supreme court in this case is saying that not even circuit courts should look at partisan gerrymandering cases):

The holding here is that such claims are non-justiciable -- that they are not of the kind that courts can decide. That admits of very few factual exceptions, if any. Essentially, if your claim sounds in partisan gerrymandering, the courts cannot accept it.
Click to expand...
 
berbatrick said:
I think the real question now is how the Democrats should start doing it in the states where they have a trifecta (governor/state senate/house).
Click to expand...

I can't see that happening because the Dems play politics terribly. If it did i reckon we might suddenly find (to our delight) that a hitherto overlooked passage of amendment 14, or whatever, does in fact vest federal courts with the power to intervene but only under certain, special, circumstances.
 
Chuck Schumer ‘will pay a heavy price’ for throwing House Dems ‘under the bus’: senior Democratic aide

House Democrats are livid at Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for giving the Trump administration a “blank check” for border funding.

“Schumer threw all of House Democrats under the bus and he will pay a heavy price for that,” a senior Democratic aide told Politico’s Jake Sherman.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) blasted the bill passed by the Senate.

“Under no circumstances should the House vote for a [Mitch] McConnell-only bill w/ no negotiation with Democrats,” AOC instructed. “Hell no.”

“That’s an abdication of power we should refuse to accept. They will keep hurting kids if we do,” she predicted.

“This Senate Bill will have us write a $4.6 Billion blank check (including military money) for the border with no accountability – just a verbal pinky promise,” she explained. “Trump is not to be trusted with protecting our immigrants. Why must that even be stated? We need hard lines of protection, in ink.”
Click to expand...
 
Eboue said:
Schumer and Pelosi are some of the biggest pieces of shit alive. The world would be a better place if both just dropped dead.
Click to expand...

A pair of spineless cnuts. They love trolling Trump yet doing absolutely feck all to stop or prevent him doing the shit he does. All piss and wind. I despise the pair of them. Yay, let's celebrate and laugh because we stood up to him and made him walk out a room in anger, but let's not follow through on anything.
 
langster said:
A pair of spineless cnuts. They love trolling Trump yet doing absolutely feck all to stop or prevent him doing the shit he does. All piss and wind. I despise the pair of them. Yay, let's celebrate and laugh because we stood up to him and made him walk out a room in anger, but let's not follow through on anything.
Click to expand...

Reminds of that absolute cretin who runs dailykos.

 


That woman never misses a chance to embarrass herself. She is the intellectual equivalent of the president on the left, isn't she?
 
Florida Man said:
What exactly was wrong with what she said?
Click to expand...

Using the term concentration camp to describe facilities people are free to leave from is just vile and demeaning the Holocaust. The backlash from actual Holocaust survivors should tell her as much. This is not the first she has displayed an astonishing ignorance and lack of knowledge about history to make a point that suits her political agenda (hence the Trump comparison).
 
Pagh Wraith said:
Using the term concentration camp to describe facilities people are free to leave from is just vile and demeaning the Holocaust. The backlash from actual Holocaust survivors should tell her as much. This is not the first she has displayed an astonishing ignorance and lack of knowledge about history to make a point that suits her political agenda (hence the Trump comparison).
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it ain't Auschwitz it's not a concentration camp, sure...
Gosh, how I loathe this foul way of using the Holocaust as an immunization tool for just about any inhuman policy.
 
2ndTouch said:
Yeah, if it ain't Auschwitz it's not a concentration camp, sure...
Gosh, how I loathe this foul way of using the Holocaust as an immunization tool for just about any inhuman policy.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly defend this? I assume you are German and you should know that if a German politician had said this they would not be heard from again for a while. You do not ever under any circumstances compare anything to the Holocaust. The only people that do this are neo-Nazis who love to use this term for the Allied bombing of German cities. And trying to wiggle out of it citing the "academical definition" of concentration camps just makes it worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.