SCOTUS rules against democracy in Gerrymandering case!!!

[independentusa]

The Supreme Court is not the top dictator of the country. Even they have to follow the laws and the constitution and judge their cases in that manner.

NO, they are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws and thus they are able to decide how the country is run. Now they are saying it is okay to take away the one man one vote.

 

[veritas1]

Read the intent of the founders. We the people have the authority to change this government, in fitting with social changes.

Just because the word isnt used doesn't mean it wasnt intended.

Changing it means enacting legislation or amending the Constitution, not having an edict come down from a court.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We agree on the rest, but I'd like to see evidence for your claim, which I disagree with. Not that the coverage has changed - it has, for the reasons I listed - but that the Fairness Doctrine specifically had the very large effect you claim.

Start with Edward R. Murrow and work forward. Ed Murrow was pretty much one of the driving forces behind the Fairness Doctrine, which by the way was also spurred by our past experiences with the "Murdochs" of the preceding era, in which television did not yet exist.

The great magnates like W.R. Hearst were also partly responsible. The FCC was tasked with helping to ensure that television news and public affairs would not fall victim to the same political ambitions of another Hearst style magnate who could manipulate the will of the people for his own agenda.
The solution was quite simple, in that the Communications Act of 1934 required that broadcasting on the public airwaves center around "service in the public interest" and therefore transmitter licenses would only be granted IF stations SERVED "in the public interest" with regard to what the FCC termed "news and public affairs".

The Fairness Doctrine was entirely a creature of the new television era itself.
Thus, if one asks what evidence there is, I would have to point you to every bit of news ever created for television prior to the early 1990's.
Instead of asking for evidence that the Fairness Doctrine prevailed, perhaps you should ask if there is evidence that the lack of a fairness doctrine has allowed evidence of overt and covert bias to sink into the news we consume today.

By the way, grant of license was the only "enforcement" that the FCC had for the doctrine.
There was no schedule of fines or other punishment. License holders simply were required to demonstrate that they adequately served the public interest and offered enough time to opposing views on editorial content.

The way station and network owners complied was actually through an informal gentleman's agreement to operate their news departments as loss leaders, and thus they were able to insulate news from the effects of chasing profit.

 

[independentusa]

You should educate yourself on how Roe was the constitutional decision.

Here are two things to start you.

One, is learn that the constitution itself demands that there is a concept of rights the people have that are not explicitly stated in the constitution. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. The constitution says that a right not being explicitly listed, such as 'free speech', doesn't make it any less protected as a right. It's the argument that such rights are NOT protected that violates the constitution.

Two, is read Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision where the constitutionality of this issue was recognized, where the right to personal choice was recognized as just such a protected right that is not listed in the constitution. Your not understanding the constitutional issues doesn't mean there aren't any the ruling is based on.

All of your arguments are based on "court" opinions and "court" decisions, but are not specifically spelled out in the constitution you do realize. So Roe like Citizens are just 'opinions and decisions" made by the court. Those very same opinions and decisions can be and with Roe probably will be reversed by a later court. By the way, I have actually taken a course in the constitution.

 

[What if...?]

It is virtually impossible to gerrymander unless you won in the first place. Therefore, it is a lame argument to say that gerrymandering alters election results to any high degree. If you won the first time around it can't really be proven that that same side wouldn't have won again without gerrymandering. Bottom line, elections are run by the states, therefore federal courts don't have any jurisdiction over a state process.

And I'm quite sure you would feel the opposite if you werent a republican.

But it allows you to stay "relevant" as your dinosaur ideology withers as you die off.

So you will cheer anything that prolongs your disappearance into history.

 

[independentusa]

A lower court has already decided that. But, I see where you are coming from. If a court decides cases in favor of liberals then it is a legitimate court. If it decides cases in favor of conservatives then it is a kangaroo court. At least that makes it simple.

See, you are looking at this as a Con who favors the present courts "decisions" instead of looking at our constitution and our democracy. The court says it is up to the legislature to fix the gerrymandering problem. Since how a state sets up its districts is a state decision, it would be up to the state legislatures to fix gerrymandering. The very same legislatures that set up the gerrymandering in the first place and went to court to insure they could continue to gerrymander. Do you not see the problem in this scenario?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

All of your arguments are based on "court" opinions and "court" decisions, but are not specifically spelled out in the constitution you do realize. So Roe like Citizens are just 'opinions and decisions" made by the court. Those very same opinions and decisions can be and with Roe probably will be reversed by a later court. By the way, I have actually taken a course in the constitution.

Then why do you appear to have a cynical view on SCOTUS interpretation thereof?
Or am I just imagining the cynicism.
I mean, what I'm getting at is: That is HOW SCOTUS works. They issue opinions and decisions.
SCOTUS coin of the realm, this is their work product.

 

[What if...?]

I have nothing to do with the SC decision.
I think they made the right one though. I don't see the decision as permitting politicians to rig the game.
I'll vote for whom I believe is the best candidate. Thanks.
The republic is not a democracy.

But it is a democratic republic.

That's what all that voting stuff in the Constitution is all about.

And of course you don't think it allows politicians to rig the game.

Even though the entire purpose of doing it is to rig the ****ing game.

It takes more effort to draw lines that benefit your side than it does to just balance the population numbers per district. You have to ****ing select some folks and de-select others to obtain the desired outcome.

Just another reason modern conservatives don't deserve respect.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I have nothing to do with the SC decision.
I think they made the right one though. I don't see the decision as permitting politicians to rig the game.
I'll vote for whom I believe is the best candidate. Thanks.
The republic is not a democracy.

The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a hatred of democracy.
(See AUTHORITARIANS)

 

[Lisa]

Changing it means enacting legislation or amending the Constitution, not having an edict come down from a court.

Having all votes count as equal, regardless of the party or the district they are cast does not require an amendment. That idea forms the very core of representative government. It is so obvious that it was understood by the framers.

 

[independentusa]

This whole Kurds thing is ridiculous. Obama didn't give a damn about Crimea. Where was your anger then? You lefties always complain about the right being war hawks spending trillions of dollars on the military and fighting endless wars and now, all of a sudden, you care about the Kurds. The Kurds and Turkey were fighting long before Trump became president. We didn't defend the Kurds then.

You wanted us to go to war with Russia over Crimea? What would you have done if you were Obama and he did place sanctions of Russia at the time and along with the Other members of the G7 kicked them out of the group. And We are not talking about the Kurds fighting the Turks in Turkey, which has been going on for a long time, we are talking about our allies in the fight against ISIS being attacked in Syria and we could have stopped the whole thing by just staying in place.

 

[humbolt]

The SCOTUS hasn't been doing its job so that problem exists. Political parties have too much power and they need to be reigned in. How can the people reign the political parties in when our votes don't count equally because of political shenanigans in the voting process.?

The SCOTUS does rule on political issues because at its core is an issue of the power of each vote being equal. Marbury v. Madison was about a political appointment.

Individual states redraw congressional districts. Solve the problem at it's origen.

I would agree that the SC is perhaps excessively political, but the imposition of litmus tests at the senate is largely the culprit. I fail to see how granting the SC more political influence could be construed as a cure.

 

[Athanasius68]

See, you are looking at this as a Con who favors the present courts "decisions" instead of looking at our constitution and our democracy. The court says it is up to the legislature to fix the gerrymandering problem. Since how a state sets up its districts is a state decision, it would be up to the state legislatures to fix gerrymandering. The very same legislatures that set up the gerrymandering in the first place and went to court to insure they could continue to gerrymander. Do you not see the problem in this scenario?

Yes. Democracy is difficult.
But, if one is determined to bypass democracy, use the state courts. Maybe an argument can be made that the relevant state election law violates the state constitution.

 

[Lisa]

Fascism and theocracy are incompatible value systems

Wasn't it you who said that you support a religious monarchy, as long as it enforced your brand of Christianity? You have no room to complain about either fascism or a theocracy.

 

[Athanasius68]

Having all votes count as equal, regardless of the party or the district they are cast does not require an amendment. That idea forms the very core of representative government. It is so obvious that it was understood by the framers.

All votes already count as equal.

 

[What if...?]

Gerrymandering is nothing more than an excuse for losing. Hillary filled up an entire book with excuses.

Sure.

Of coirse gerrymandering has exactly nothing to do with presidential elections, but hey, modern conservatism is just dogmatic following of conditioned beliefs.

So what else should I expect except proud ignorance.

 

[What if...?]

If we just got rid of democracy, or severely limited it to only those worth 1,000,000 or more this wouldn’t be an issue

It would be for those of us who found ourselves starving serfs shortly thereafter.

Heinlein's requirement for a period of service to obtain the franchise would be far more in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.

Who specifically rebuked the system you crave

 

[Lisa]

Individual states redraw congressional districts. Solve the problem at it's origin.

I would agree that the SC is perhaps excessively political, but the imposition of litmus tests at the senate is largely the culprit. I fail to see how granting the SC more political influence could be construed as a cure.

The politicians cannot redraw the districts to protect their job security, their fiscal donor's goals, and their parties' interests. Those districts must be redrawn as close to 50/50 so that all votes count as equal. I'd like to ban political parties as a way to reduce the partisanship that controls our government but as of yet, there is no way to do so.

Ohio is a good example. Look at the district boundaries that changed between 2008 and 2001 when Kasich and the GOP/TEAparty redrew the state to make it bright red and after being relatively equal after the 2010 census.

An Ohio congressional map that makes sense - un-gerrymandered - cleveland.com

 

[trixare4kids]

But it is a democratic republic.

That's what all that voting stuff in the Constitution is all about.

And of course you don't think it allows politicians to rig the game.

Even though the entire purpose of doing it is to rig the ****ing game.

It takes more effort to draw lines that benefit your side than it does to just balance the population numbers per district. You have to ****ing select some folks and de-select others to obtain the desired outcome.

Just another reason modern conservatives don't deserve respect.

What makes you think that conservatives care about your respect for them? Leave the feely touch stuff out of this and let's get back to reality. This is SC decision that you won't accept, just as you won't accept the POTUS. Why is this the problem of "modern conservatives?"

 

[Lisa]

All votes already count as equal.

Not when the district is gerrymandered. More than 55% of Democrats could vote where I live and the democratic candidate would still lose the election. It happened in 2012 and 14 house of representatives. My TEAbag would have been tossed out on his keister of the boundaries were the same as when he was elected, but because is it I now a majority republican district it was almost impossible to vote him out.

 

[Lisa]

It would be for those of us who found ourselves starving serfs shortly thereafter.

Heinlein's requirement for a period of service to obtain the franchise would be far more in keeping with the philosophy of the founders.

Who specifically rebuked the system you crave

I'd like to know why EMNSeattle believes that millionaires are more suited to make choices for others? Why would we want to get rid of a reprressdative government and live without a voice under the church or millionaires? Apparently, he didn't learn the lesson of the Magna Carta and the French revolution.

 

[humbolt]

The politicians cannot redraw the districts to protect their job security, their fiscal donor's goals, and their parties' interests. Those districts must be redrawn as close to 50/50 so that all votes count as equal. I'd like to ban political parties as a way to reduce the partisanship that controls our government but as of yet, there is no way to do so.

Ohio is a good example. Look at the district boundaries that changed between 2008 and 2001 when Kasich and the GOP/TEAparty redrew the state to make it bright red and after being relatively equal after the 2010 census.

An Ohio congressional map that makes sense - un-gerrymandered - cleveland.com

Ah, but politicians do all the time. That's how we got where we are. Be careful who you vote for.

Political parties are not going away. They are, in fact, healthy, so long as they remain true to the members who give them political power. No local group of voters can tackle a national party. That's best done locally. Thus the state is again the appropriate level at which to address such things.

 

[Lisa]

Ah, but politicians do all the time. That's how we got where we are. Be careful who you vote for.

Political parties are not going away. They are, in fact, healthy, so long as they remain true to the members who give them political power. No local group of voters can tackle a national party. That's best done locally. Thus the state is again the appropriate level at which to address such things.

The political parties are the problem and the problem must be addressed. Do you not understand that the states are also controlled by the same national party? Political parties and the power that their wield werte not considered when the Constitution was written and that is a major problem. The SCOTUS is so politicized that they aren't going to act and obviously neither is Congress. Voting 3rd party isn't a rational choice.

 

[Helix]

Which apparently four of the nine tried to do. I've said before, the courts are one of the most harmful single effects of electing Republicans, if not the most harmful.

losing the courts could impede progress for more than a generation. it's sad.

 

[humbolt]

The political parties are the problem and the problem must be addressed. Do you not understand that the states are also controlled by the same national party? Political parties and the power that their wield werte not considered when the Constitution was written and that is a major problem. The SCOTUS is so politicized that they aren't going to act and obviously neither is Congress. Voting 3rd party isn't a rational choice.

I'm not affiliated with either political party, but I can see the need they fill. You may promote outlawing political parties, but that's anti-democratic and a fool's errand besides, in my view. Cleaning up the parties would be the appropriate solution, but that's a huge job. Very difficult.

I suggest that if you want to fight political corruption, then fight political corruption. The warning resides in the truth that some causes you may hold dear could be hurt as well. Comes with the territory.