Jump to content

In 5-4 decision, SCOTUS says extreme partisan gerrymandering is beyond reach of federal courts.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jose said:

 

You oppose statehood for Puerto Rico?

 

I support whatever they want, whether it's statehood or independence. 

15 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Of the three things I mentioned, only one could be construed as trying to stack in favour of Democrats (PR statehood). The others simply increase the accuracy of representation and the efficiency of government. And PR statehood is only partisan if you believe that Puerto Ricans do not deserve representation.

 

See, here's the thing. You guys support a whole bunch of things that just so happen would favor Democrats. But instead of coming out and admitting it would benefit the party you like, you hide behind about doing the right thing. Doing the right thing that happens to benefit you.. At least swineflufan can freely admit when he's supporting undermining his enemies. No one is going to lose respect for you saying hey let's do this because it will help us out, shit if anything you'd get more respect for being honest about it. You support PR statehood because they would reliably vote Democrat. you support expanding the house because you anticipate more democrats would get elected. If the opposite were true, you wouldn't support it. Don't hide  behind this increasing democracy bullshit, because if it increased democracy for Republicans you wouldn't support it. Don't disrespect yourself by replying "Not unh!" like I know you will. 

 

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

You're honestly a bigger hack than DVD for this contrived bullshit

 

Oh fuck off, because any of you are unbiased impartial observers of objective reality. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

I support whatever they want, whether it's statehood or independence. 

 

See, here's the thing. You guys support a whole bunch of things that just so happen would favor Democrats. But instead of coming out and admitting it would benefit the party you like, you hide behind about doing the right thing. Doing the right thing that happens to benefit you.. At least swineflufan can freely admit when he's supporting undermining his enemies. No one is going to lose respect for you saying hey let's do this because it will help us out, shit if anything you'd get more respect for being honest about it. You support PR statehood because they would reliably vote Democrat. you support expanding the house because you anticipate more democrats would get elected. If the opposite were true, you wouldn't support it. Don't hide  behind this increasing democracy bullshit, because if it increased democracy for Republicans you wouldn't support it. Don't disrespect yourself by replying "Not unh!" like I know you will. 

 

 

Oh fuck off, because any of you are unbiased impartial observers of objective reality. 

 

Why do you act like you don't know they overwhelmingly support statehood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dodger said:

 

I support whatever they want, whether it's statehood or independence. 

 

See, here's the thing. You guys support a whole bunch of things that just so happen would favor Democrats. But instead of coming out and admitting it would benefit the party you like, you hide behind about doing the right thing. Doing the right thing that happens to benefit you.. At least swineflufan can freely admit when he's supporting undermining his enemies. No one is going to lose respect for you saying hey let's do this because it will help us out, shit if anything you'd get more respect for being honest about it. You support PR statehood because they would reliably vote Democrat. you support expanding the house because you anticipate more democrats would get elected. If the opposite were true, you wouldn't support it. Don't hide  behind this increasing democracy bullshit, because if it increased democracy for Republicans you wouldn't support it. Don't disrespect yourself by replying "Not unh!" like I know you will. 

 

 

Oh fuck off, because any of you are unbiased impartial observers of objective reality. 

There's no such thing as impartial whatever the fuck you wanted to say. Would vastly expanding the house help the Democrats? Maybe, but only so far as the current coalition is packed into cities. There being such a limited number of seats that makes it easier to dilute the power of any voters, regardless of political affiliation from Republicans in MA to democrats in MS, or any voter in CA compared to the voting power of the lone rep from WY. The house is supposed to be the people's chamber, and it hasn't been expanded for a century. It's long overdue for expansion, and I've supported this long before the current crop of nimrods came to power in the White House.

 

As for PR and DC? Yeah, DC will help Dems and that's about 40% of the reason I support statehood. The other being they pay US taxes, are citizens, and are not being represented in Congress at all. PR though, their nonvoting rep is a republican so I dunno what the fuck the benefit is there to statehood but it should be their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

I support whatever they want, whether it's statehood or independence. 

 

See, here's the thing. You guys support a whole bunch of things that just so happen would favor Democrats. But instead of coming out and admitting it would benefit the party you like, you hide behind about doing the right thing. Doing the right thing that happens to benefit you.. At least swineflufan can freely admit when he's supporting undermining his enemies. No one is going to lose respect for you saying hey let's do this because it will help us out, shit if anything you'd get more respect for being honest about it. You support PR statehood because they would reliably vote Democrat. you support expanding the house because you anticipate more democrats would get elected. If the opposite were true, you wouldn't support it. Don't hide  behind this increasing democracy bullshit, because if it increased democracy for Republicans you wouldn't support it. Don't disrespect yourself by replying "Not unh!" like I know you will. 

 

 

 

We can quibble over issues like PR statehood and things like that, but I genuinely do not care which party suffers/benefits winning 50% of the vote should not garner you 66% of a legislature. Period.

 

This far surpasses partisanship for me because, at the end of the day, I genuinely think that keeping representation by the people is more important than that people who agree with me win this or that election.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

This far surpasses partisanship for me because, at the end of the day, I genuinely think that keeping representation by the people is more important than that people who agree with me win this or that election.

Reminds me of this quote (not supporting everything by the Atlantic and especially not David frum): "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Why do you act like you don't know they overwhelmingly support statehood?

 

I assume they do, it's not really a hot button issue for me so I don't pay much attention to it. I just wouldn't want to make them a state if the majority opinion over there was like nah bro we're straight we like independence. I wouldn't force them to be a state against their will is all, although that doesn't appear to be the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dodger How can you with a straight face criticize people for not being transparent about their political beliefs and then say "I support whatever Puerto Rico wants" like they didnt just vote on it? What the fuck?

 

Ok you just responded as I posted that. Maybe dont have opinions on issue you arent informed on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

There is no such thing as "objective reality".

 

 

Of course there isn't, and at least you're the one person who can say yeah I support xyz because it advances my beliefs. I don't know why it's so hard for people to say yeah I support this because fuck Republicans, that's why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Reading through it now and I think the majority is “correct”, which points out the absolute absurdity of our system. There is no clear constitutional basis for the federal courts to intervene with regards to political party based gerrymandering. They could have said, and would be correct as well, that many aspects of political gerrymandering have been cover for racially biased maps. But score one for the GOP, they have ensured relevance for many decades to come :p 

 

The court can give themselves jurisdiction to decide a necessary constitutional question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

So how long before Republicans start allocating Electoral Votes based on gerrymandered Congressional Districts? 

Maine and Nebraska.

 

 

This is why we hundreds more reps in the house. If gerrymandering has such a huge effect, dilute its effects. The solution to pollution is dilution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...