Politics Supreme Court decides federal judges cannot block gerrymandering

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Fucking Republicans....gotta keep the maps in their favor huh
 
Chris Craig said:
Fucking Republicans....gotta keep the maps in their favor huh
Click to expand...

According to the article, there were two cases under consideration, one benefitting the Republicans and one benefitting the Democrats:

"The two cases came from North Carolina and Maryland. In North Carolina, Democratic voters alleged that a map drawn by the GOP legislature in 2016 unfairly benefited Republicans.

In Maryland, it was Republicans who challenged the map, saying that one congressional district drawn in 2011 was unfairly tilted in favor of the Democrats.

In both cases, those behind the maps admitted that they were drawn to benefit their party."
 
e_blazer said:
According to the article, there were two cases under consideration, one benefitting the Republicans and one benefitting the Democrats:

"The two cases came from North Carolina and Maryland. In North Carolina, Democratic voters alleged that a map drawn by the GOP legislature in 2016 unfairly benefited Republicans.

In Maryland, it was Republicans who challenged the map, saying that one congressional district drawn in 2011 was unfairly tilted in favor of the Democrats.

In both cases, those behind the maps admitted that they were drawn to benefit their party."
Click to expand...

Fuck gerrymandering all together. The supreme court should have done something about it. The conservative judges didn't want too.
 
Once again 4 activist judges try to distort the SCOTUS into a political weapon for their own extremist views. The majority rightfully dismissed the outrageous attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
 
Chris Craig said:
Fuck gerrymandering all together. The supreme court should have done something about it. The conservative judges didn't want too.
Click to expand...
Don't really understand why states' rights is a conservative/liberal thing.
 
MARIS61 said:
Once again 4 activist judges try to distort the SCOTUS into a political weapon for their own extremist views. The majority rightfully dismissed the outrageous attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Incorrect
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Don't really understand why states' rights is a conservative/liberal thing.
Click to expand...

Really? You joking? Sarcasm?

Because of politics. Because of power. States are either controlled by conseratives or by liberals. It's become about keeping that power at all costs. Hence gerrymandering.
 
Chris Craig said:
Really? You joking? Sarcasm?

Because of politics. Because of power. States are either controlled by conseratives or by liberals. It's become about keeping that power at all costs. Hence gerrymandering.
Click to expand...
I understand gerrymandering. I understand how conservatives (mostly) and liberals (occasionally) use it to keep power. I understand why it's undesirable.

What I don't understand is why the belief on whether the federal government has a right to tell states how they should do things (like determine their states' representatives) is a conservative/liberal issue. The question just doesn't seem to logically fit into either the fiscal or social divides between the two parties.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I understand gerrymandering. I understand how conservatives (mostly) and liberals (occasionally) use it to keep power. I understand why it's undesirable.

What I don't understand is why the belief on whether the federal government has a right to tell states how they should do things (like determine their states' representatives) is a conservative/liberal issue. The question just doesn't seem to logically fit into either the fiscal or social divides between the two parties.
Click to expand...

Wow!
I was just about to post my dismay over people objecting to the courts ruling. Then I read you're response, almost exactly my take.
I will just add, I find the court to be quite honest in their conclusion. They can find no Constitutional support for them to take a side. While I would like gerrymandering ended, the last done in Oregon is appalling, I don't see Congress ever being able to write
and offer a Constitutional amendment to end the dang practice. And if they did, it would not be enforceable without endlessly going to court.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I understand gerrymandering. I understand how conservatives (mostly) and liberals (occasionally) use it to keep power.
Click to expand...

Whoops. I know you wouldn't mislead anyone, but I also know you probably are not old enough to remember the last time conservative gerrymandering this state. I do not.
The last time it was done, is what we have today. It gave the Senate to the Dems. So I must object to the the assertion that it is mostly conservatives that do this shit. Actually I don't think it is even consistent with the way most conservatives think.
 
MarAzul said:
Whoops. I know you wouldn't mislead anyone, but I also know you probably are not old enough to remember the last time conservative gerrymandering this state. I do not.
The last time it was done, is what we have today. It gave the Senate to the Dems. So I must object to the the assertion that it is mostly conservatives that do this shit. Actually I don't think it is even consistent with the way most conservatives think.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about Oregon specifically. Generally when I hear about gerrymandering issues in other states, it involves conservative lawmakers redrawing districts to isolate minorities, which is why I said what I said. It's just my perception, flawed as it may be. However, I'd freely retract my claim given data to the contrary, if such exists.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I wasn't talking about Oregon specifically. Generally when I hear about gerrymandering issues in other states, it involves conservative lawmakers redrawing districts to isolate minorities, which is why I said what I said. It's just my perception, flawed as it may be. However, I'd freely retract my claim given data to the contrary, if such exists.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me, some time the purpose is to intentional isolate minorities to enhance the probability of electing a minority in that district. Probably not conservatives doing this. Then one has to keep in mind that Republicans are not always conservatives. Some are Republicans to get elected, then vote like democrats.
 
MarAzul said:
Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me, some time the purpose is to intentional isolate minorities to enhance the probability of electing a minority in that district. Probably not conservatives doing this.
Click to expand...
Some look at it as ensuring the minority citizens have a single elector representing their interests. Others see it is limiting/preventing various minorities from having impact/influence in multiple districts. I'm familiar with both arguments.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Some look at it as ensuring the minority citizens have a single elector representing their interests. Others see it is limiting/preventing various minorities from having impact/influence in multiple districts. I'm familiar with both arguments.
Click to expand...

Yes, both are correct I suppose. I sure don't want to choose. Don't know how a court would either.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I wasn't talking about Oregon specifically. Generally when I hear about gerrymandering issues in other states, it involves conservative lawmakers redrawing districts to isolate minorities, which is why I said what I said. It's just my perception, flawed as it may be. However, I'd freely retract my claim given data to the contrary, if such exists.
Click to expand...
I think you're pretty accurate.
 
barfo said:
That is simply not possible.

barfo
Click to expand...
Look, you two. I think I've been dumber than anyone and I've got the ex wife to prove it. For example, she ran off with a bank robber in a stolen car. There's a whole lot more but it's too embarrassing to go into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top