POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[gehringer_2]

59 minutes ago, buddha said:

what are you talking about?  the decision to let the pro democrat maps pass without review?

not the decision, the consensus expressed by some of the conservative members that they want to take up the issue of whether the language in the Constitution regarding state legislatures having power over elections trumps State Constitutional constraints on the exercise of that power. That seems like an obviously absurd position for SCOTUS to take and one can only be politically motivated in my book. For instance the US constitution may explicitly give the 'power of the purse' the the legislative branch, but that in no way means a court couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't overturn a spending bill that violates the equal protection clause because it only allotted funds to white people. The mere assignment of a power in the Constitutions doesn't vitiate other limitations on that power They would basically be saying that no voting access rights case based on a state legislative decision could be heard except in a federal court. That seems pretty idiotic to me. Of course the next obvious step for the conservatives would then be to deny cert in the Federal courts saying they didn't have jurisdiction either.....The perfect slippery slope to eliminate right's protection.

Edited March 10, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

not the decision, the consensus expressed by some of the conservative members that they want to take up the issue of whether the language in the Constitution regarding state legislatures having power over elections trumps State Constitutional constraints on the exercise of that power. That seems like an obviously absurd position for SCOTUS to take and one can only be politically motivated in my book. For instance the US constitution may explicitly give the 'power of the purse' the the legislative branch, but that in no way means a court couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't overturn a spending bill that violates the equal protection clause because it only allotted funds to white people. The mere assignment of a power in the Constitutions doesn't vitiate other limitations on that power They would basically be saying that no voting access rights case based on a state legislative decision could be heard except in a federal court. That seems pretty idiotic to me. Of course the next obvious step for the conservatives would then be to deny cert in the Federal courts saying they didn't have jurisdiction either.....

honestly, that's more you applying a liberal doomsday scenario than an actual opinion expressed by any sc justice.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Wouldn't it also basically do away with independent commissions established in states like California?

ok.  i read some stuff so now im an expert.  😉

i would say it would not.  the constitution gives the power to the legislatures to do as they please.  if the legislature votes to give that power to an independent commission to make the maps, they can do that.  in fact, the sc has found that if the people change the constitution through amendment to have an independent commission draw the maps, that counts too (although that sounds shaky to me).

as long as the "legislature" approves the method, and the method doesnt violate any other law like equal protection, due process, etc, then it should be ok.

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, buddha said:

honestly, that's more you applying a liberal doomsday scenario than an actual opinion expressed by any sc justice.

well of course I drew out the arg to it's extreme conclusion - but  you can't deny that the conservative agenda has been a long term play! But there is a federalist principle here as to what a state legislature fundamentally is. It is a creation of a state constitution, and thus subject to those state constitutional rules, or is is some kind of free floating unrestrained entity. To me that is a pretty easy answer and I have trouble seeing why a JOTSC would even be interested in visiting the question. But then I think "corporations are people" and "money is speech" are pretty asinine as well.

Edited March 10, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

ok.  i read some stuff so now im an expert.  😉

i would say it would not.  the constitution gives the power to the legislatures to do as they please.  if the legislature votes to give that power to an independent commission to make the maps, they can do that.  in fact, the sc has found that if the people change the constitution through amendment to have an independent commission draw the maps, that counts too (although that sounds shaky to me).

as long as the "legislature" approves the method, and the method doesnt violate any other law like equal protection, due process, etc, then it should be ok.

Under that interpretation Michigan's system could be thrown out then, as it was created by a citizen's initiative/constitutional amendment.  So what if the constitutional amendment mandated that the legislature create the redistricting commissions? A fig leaf, but then the law is full of them....

[buddha]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Under that interpretation Michigan's system could be thrown out then, as it was created by a citizen's initiative/constitutional amendment.  So what if the constitutional amendment mandated that the legislature create the redistricting commissions? A fig leaf, but then the law is full of them....

under the current ruling from the evil supreme court, michigan's system is just fine.

but i'm sure snidley whiplash will be around to make sure the will of the people is frustrated (if the "will of the people" supports democrats) or will be around to make sure the constitution is thwarted and a blatantly unconstitutional (i.e. republican) map is granted.

[buddha]

i joke, but i really cant stand gerrymandering and would hope one day it is gotten rid of.  and "independent commissions" arent really "independent" either.  its a conundrum that i dont have a solution for.

[oblong]

When human beings decide the maps and have to take certain things into consideration then isn't everything a gerrymander?   If you could just draw maps based on geography and no other social considerations like race/income/voting history then you won't have gerrymandering.  

What if you had a rule that said a boundary has to be a state road?  I have no idea if that's even possible but introduce some hard coded language... of course that could lead to bad decisions on what makes a road a local/county/state road.  "Ok, fine the state takes this dirt road over"

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

When human beings decide the maps and have to take certain things into consideration then isn't everything a gerrymander?   If you could just draw maps based on geography and no other social considerations like race/income/voting history then you won't have gerrymandering.  

What if you had a rule that said a boundary has to be a state road?  I have no idea if that's even possible but introduce some hard coded language... of course that could lead to bad decisions on what makes a road a local/county/state road.  "Ok, fine the state takes this dirt road over"

If you wanted the most impartial rule I could come up it would simply be to let a computer minimize the total perimeter of all districts, with the only over-ride factor being to avoid dividing existing governmental units as much as possible. 

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If you wanted the most impartial rule I could come up it would simply be to let a computer minimize the total perimeter of all districts, with the only over-ride factor being to avoid dividing existing governmental units as much as possible. 

the best thing to do would be to just program an agorithm to do it without any other consideration than population size.  each district must have x amount of population and be geographically contiguous.

but that wont happen because then you cant take race into account and people will complain that the computer is racist.

[chasfh]

I know someone here who will enjoy this story.

 

 

[pfife]

Another of rhe best parody accounts on the bird app 🤣 

 

[pfife]

 

[CMRivdogs]

I didn't want to turn the time change thread political but it appears that someone or two pulled a fast one...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/18/senate-daylight-saving-time-vote-accident/

Quote

Rubio and Sinema had pulled a fast one. A proposal with only 18 co-sponsors cleared the body in a New York minute. Neither the Democratic whip nor the Republican whip in the Senate knew it was happening. And the Senate has no way to claw back the bill, so it goes to the House — which hopefully will be a bit more deliberative before messing with Father Time.

Reporting by The Post’s Paul Kane and BuzzFeed’s Paul McLeodindicates Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.), top Republican on the Commerce Committee, had planned to object to the “unanimous consent” request to pass what he calls “bad legislation,” but decided not to at the last minute because he’s focused on more pressing matters, such as the war in Ukraine.

In other words, it’s Vladimir Putin’s fault that our clocks may change.

Staff for other senators had been informed by Rubio’s office about the time-change hustle, but word didn’t reach many of the members — perhaps because people wrongly thought Wicker would handle the objection. It was a timely reminder: You snooze, you lose.

 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[1984Echoes]

Ewww.

I just threw up in my mouth.

[pfife]

 

If you don't rt then you don't like presidents who exercise  🤣

[oblong]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

 

If you don't rt then you don't like presidents who exercise  🤣

He is just mad that his dad could not ride a bike today. 

[Archie]

Eric T is right.  Biden looked rediculous with his helmet and basket/reflector or whatever it was. It makes him look even more like the vegetable that he is. For sure it doesn't portray a man of strength, just more weakness.  This guy even makes the Carter look good.

Democrats cried about Trump killing the economy and getting us in WWIII but are now silent when Biden is doing just that.

[Tigerbomb13]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

Eric T is right.  Biden looked rediculous with his helmet and basket/reflector or whatever it was. It makes him look even more like the vegetable that he is. For sure it doesn't portray a man of strength, just more weakness.  This guy even makes the Carter look good.

Democrats cried about Trump killing the economy and getting us in WWIII but are now silent when Biden is doing just that.

Can you imagine if he wore a tan suit? We could send him to The Hague!

[oblong]

yeah thats right.  Only pussies wear helmets!

Get a fucking clue.

[pfife]

LOL @ Biden killing the economy.  What a joke.  Esp coming from the guy who supports the dude that drove unemployment up to 10% and lost more jobs than any other president since the great depression during his tenure.

[Tigerbomb13]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

LOL @ Biden killing the economy.  What a joke.  Esp coming from the guy who supports the dude that drove unemployment up to 10% and lost more jobs than any other president since the great depression during his tenure.

Next time I decide to wear a bike helmet, I’m going to think twice as it’s things like that bring us to WW3. 

[CMRivdogs]

All that love for a guy who needs a driver for a golf cart. Too damn fat to walk the course like a real man

[pfife]

I'll tell yah what..... from my personal experience over the last couple weeks..... if you're not on the job market you should be.