• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court allows severe partisan gerrymandering to continue

Phys251

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,546
Reaction score
51,506
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Partisan gerrymandering allowed to continue by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court said Thursday that federal courts must stay out of disputes over when politicians go too far in drawing district lines for partisan gain -- a dramatic and sweeping ruling that could fundamentally affect the balance of power in state legislatures and Congress.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision for the conservative majority.
Click to expand...

Justice Elena Kagan read a scathing dissent from the bench for the four liberals.

"(G)errymandering is, as so many Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the most profound sense," Kagan wrote.
"Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one," Kagan said. "The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."
Click to expand...

Hope you guys like severely gerrymandered states such as North Carolina and Maryland, which were the two states at issue here, because the SCOTUS yet again makes a 5-4 ruling that absolves the federal government of further corrosion of our electoral process.

I hope that California will respond to this by gerrymandering itself so hard that they will send a single-digit number of Republicans to the House starting in 2021. Time for the Democrats to stop playing nice with a party that is openly hostile to voting rights.
 
Phys251 said:
Partisan gerrymandering allowed to continue by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics





Hope you guys like severely gerrymandered states such as North Carolina and Maryland, which were the two states at issue here, because the SCOTUS yet again makes a 5-4 ruling that absolves the federal government of further corrosion of our electoral process.

I hope that California will respond to this by gerrymandering itself so hard that they will send a single-digit number of Republicans to the House starting in 2021. Time for the Democrats to stop playing nice with a party that is openly hostile to voting rights.
Click to expand...

There's a reason that nobody respects the Supreme Court any more. There's not even an attempt, by the right-wingers on the court, to follow consistent reasoning when deciding cases. They just go wherever their partisan political desires lead them. For example, if they'd taken the Bush v. Gore decision seriously, rather than treating it as a throw-away bit of bull**** meant to carry out a single political task, they'd need to take the view that equal protection overrides state prerogatives when it comes to how elections are done, and they'd need to make a move against this kind of gerrymandering. But, instead, they create disposable beliefs, as needed, to carry out their role as Republican operatives.
 
Every democratic state should gerrymander to the worst possible degree until these hack justices suddenly change their position on the law.
 
I have brought this issue every time I hear conservatives fuming about the undermining of democracy when they find sporadic cases of illegal voters. (which the conservative imagination multiplies in millions). The real undermining of democracy comes from gerrymandering. So, we have a president who is not elected by a majority, a Senate which is not expressing the majority (and a Senate which makes crucial decisions together with the president with respect to the third branch of the government- fed and SCOTUS judges), and a House where democracy is also undermined. It has been so bad, that recently the republicans managed in 2012 to even get control of the House even though they lost the popular vote.
 
Fruityfact said:
Every democratic state should gerrymander to the worst possible degree until these hack justices suddenly change their position on the law.
Click to expand...

Voters in many such Demographics states are more idealistic . For example, in CA we have voted to have redistricting through f a committee instead of using the legislature which is clearly dominated by the democrats.

California Citizens Redistricting Commission - Wikipedia

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is the redistricting commission for the State of California responsible for determining the boundaries of districts for the State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization. The Commission was created in 2010 and consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from neither major party. The Commission was created following the passage in November 2008 of California Proposition 11, the Voters First Act.[1] The commissioners were selected in November and December 2010 and were required to complete the new maps by August 15, 2011.[2]
 
Phys251 said:
Partisan gerrymandering allowed to continue by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics





Hope you guys like severely gerrymandered states such as North Carolina and Maryland, which were the two states at issue here, because the SCOTUS yet again makes a 5-4 ruling that absolves the federal government of further corrosion of our electoral process.

I hope that California will respond to this by gerrymandering itself so hard that they will send a single-digit number of Republicans to the House starting in 2021. Time for the Democrats to stop playing nice with a party that is openly hostile to voting rights.
Click to expand...

Bolded: This part is extremely ignorant, perhaps you should stop worrying about what goes on in other states and fight to end gerrymandering in your own state of Georgia.
 
Phys251 said:
Time for the Democrats to stop playing nice with a party that is openly hostile to voting rights.
Click to expand...
When did the Democrats ever play nice? They've been engaging in partisan gerrymandering for decades. Most notably, racial gerrymandering.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Bolded: This part is extremely ignorant, perhaps you should stop worrying about what goes on in other states and fight to end gerrymandering in your own state of Georgia.
Click to expand...

"A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
 
Taylor said:
When did the Democrats ever play nice? They've been engaging in partisan gerrymandering for decades. Most notably, racial gerrymandering.
Click to expand...


I just gave you the case of CA where redistricting is a result of a committee

When was the last time you heard a Federal Court rule against racial gerrymandering in a blue state?

We are not going to start a conversation regarding what happened in the South when it was controlled by Dixie Democrats many decades ago. We are talking about the situation now, when among other things the South is deeply red!
 
Phys251 said:
"A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Click to expand...

"Good fences make good neighbors".

At least you recognize the bolded part was ignorant.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
"Good fences make good neighbors".

At least you recognize the bolded part was ignorant.
Click to expand...

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

See? I can play Quote Game too! :)
 
Phys251 said:
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

See? I can play Quote Game too! :)
Click to expand...

What is the congressional divide in California? In case you didn't notice, you started the quote nonsense.
 
Lookit dis doublespeak! Minutes ago, you said:

AliHajiSheik said:
Bolded: This part is extremely ignorant, perhaps you should stop worrying about what goes on in other states and fight to end gerrymandering in your own state of Georgia.
Click to expand...

And now you say this:

AliHajiSheik said:
What is the congressional divide in California? In case you didn't notice, you started the quote nonsense.
Click to expand...

So you want me not to worry about any other state, but you want to! Beautiful double standard you've got, Ali!
 
Taylor said:
When did the Democrats ever play nice? They've been engaging in partisan gerrymandering for decades. Most notably, racial gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

5 conservative hacks just upheld partisan gerrymandering. This is not a both sides issue.
 
Fruityfact said:
5 conservative hacks just upheld partisan gerrymandering. This is not a both sides issue.
Click to expand...

"Elections have consequences"... :mrgreen:
 
trixare4kids said:
"Elections have consequences"... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yep, 2018 and 2020 are going to try to rectify your mistake of voting for a rapist moron who put a sexual assaulter on the supreme court.
Why do you hate women so much?
 
Thank God. Honestly, IMO, this was a far bigger case than the census/citizenship question. The Left wanted the federal government to determine what districts to be redone, and they would do it through the court system. That would have given them the power to do it whenever they want. If that would have happened, holy crap, bad things would have happened. Now, I don't want ANY political party or ideology to determine the redrawing of district lines through the federal court system. That's crap. The voters and the state, regardless if they're conservative or liberal, need to determine their own lines. That's the way this country was setup. However, the Left is far more infamous for trying alter, illegally, procedures like this. They always run to the federal government and try to find an anti-constitutional activist who poses as a federal judge to help them out. With this decision, it's a major win.

The census question, I was expecting it to survive. It would have helped, but I knew Judge Roberts would pull something like this because Trump is directly involved. That's the only reason why it was blocked. But this redrawing district lines business, a far bigger deal.
 
trixare4kids said:
"Elections have consequences"... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yes, but if the consequence of conservatives winning elections is the undermining of democracy what does this say about the conservative principles?
 
Fruityfact said:
Yep, 2018 and 2020 are going to try to rectify your mistake of voting for a rapist moron who put a sexual assaulter on the supreme court.
Why do you hate women so much?
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't like my response?
 
pamak said:
Yes, but if the consequence of conservatives winning elections is the undermining of democracy what does this say about the conservative principles?
Click to expand...

How has the confirmation of DJT's justice nominations undermined your democracy?
I'm sorry you don't like the justice's decisions, but "elections have consequences." Let's see if you are capable of discussing this quote using context.
 
Phys251 said:
Partisan gerrymandering allowed to continue by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

Hope you guys like severely gerrymandered states such as North Carolina and Maryland, which were the two states at issue here, because the SCOTUS yet again makes a 5-4 ruling that absolves the federal government of further corrosion of our electoral process.

I hope that California will respond to this by gerrymandering itself so hard that they will send a single-digit number of Republicans to the House starting in 2021. Time for the Democrats to stop playing nice with a party that is openly hostile to voting rights.
Click to expand...

What the SCOTUS has OKed is a system equivalent to Iraq, where the minority rules the nation. This was not the intention of the constitution writers. What the SCOTUS has done is open the door to retaliation. Most of the population is located in Blue states. If those legislatures decide to retaliate, they can reduce the number of Republicans in House seats to a scant minority. I don't want this to happen, since I believe in democracy.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Thank God. Honestly, IMO, this was a far bigger case than the census/citizenship question. The Left wanted the federal government to determine what districts to be redone, and they would do it through the court system. That would have given them the power to do it whenever they want. If that would have happened, holy crap, bad things would have happened. Now, I don't want ANY political party or ideology to determine the redrawing of district lines through the federal court system. That's crap. The voters and the state, regardless if they're conservative or liberal, need to determine their own lines. That's the way this country was setup. However, the Left is far more infamous for trying alter, illegally, procedures like this. They always run to the federal government and try to find an anti-constitutional activist who poses as a federal judge to help them out. With this decision, it's a major win.

The census question, I was expecting it to survive. It would have helped, but I knew Judge Roberts would pull something like this because Trump is directly involved. That's the only reason why it was blocked. But this redrawing district lines business, a far bigger deal.
Click to expand...

The conservatives use your justification to justify racial gerrymandering which, by the way, is NOT permitted by the federal courts. I assume that you think that this is "unfair" because the federal government uses the courts to block racial gerrymandering and does not let the local states deal with the issue, right?

If you do not think the above, and you agree that it is necessary for the fed courts to protect minority voters, explain to us why it would be such a bad idea to protect EVERY voter regardless of race based on the principle of one person one vote!

one-person, one-vote rule | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

Definition

The One-Person One-Vote Rule refers to the rule that one person’s voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person’s within the same state.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Lookit dis doublespeak! Minutes ago, you said:



And now you say this:



So you want me not to worry about any other state, but you want to! Beautiful double standard you've got, Ali!
Click to expand...

Facts are scary to the ignorant, but that's just how some posters like yourself roll. California wasn't in the original article, you brought it in as your own cudgel because all you see are allies or enemies, you just screwed up the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom