Business at a high level I still do. This is an echo chamber not a political forum. You bozos bounce nonsense off of each other for some confirmation bias. There is nothing complex about this forum.
Republican led Congressional Maps Rejected by the SCOTUS
- Thread starter kalimgoodman
- Start date
You're basically the second coming of JD Rockefeller, aren't you?
You can't even form sentences my dude. 😂
My read is gerrymandering is happening. The Libs, who have done a better job at throwing money at lower circuit court races and wanted to shift power to challenge gerrymandering legally.
Republicans have stronger state legislatures and wanted the power to create election regulations in the place where they thought the Constitution assigned the power.
This ruling says no, the courts do have jurisdiction but they cannot override the role of making laws and regulations…the SL is still in the driver’s seat.
Read this (I can’t hold but I used asterisks):
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the theory, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the Elections Clause "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review."Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented.
"In interpreting state law in this area, ••••state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution•••••," Roberts wrote.
My read is, courts still can do their job but nothing more. SL is still the governing body in election rules and laws.
6/7 then same idea the numbers are off likely cheating but needs to be confirmed.
#1 rule
People who brag about things on message boards are fake, and often losers.
There's good gerrymandering and there's bad gerrymandering.
Good thing you have that big ass F350 to tow your boat.
No you don't understand gerrymandering. Both parties gerrymander but only one side tend to focus on race, in which the courts called them out on it.
The courts never said that you can't gerrymander. Just don't do it by race and you'll be fine.
Why is that difficult to understand?
Captain is the king of racial comments. That man hates black democrats more than anything.
The civil rights act was needed then and it's still needed now.
Yup.
Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing, Equal Employment Opportunity...etc
Were all the result of the Civil RIghts Act
Wtf are you talking about. I never said a damn thing about the lower courts. Stop being dishonest. You brought up NC ruling and that was electors not race.
I gave you multiple quotes from Thomas mentioning race and Roberts mentioning race. You do understand how an judicial opinion work? Right?
They write opinions based on laws. The lawyers argue based on laws. The lawyers will argue how the racial maps violates that law. The courts will say whether or not that law was violated.
I'm not sure why you are so determined to not accept that both cases were about race. Both lawyers for the winning side argued race. They presented data that spoke to race..race, race race. The courts took all that information and ruled. So how did they not see the racial component when that was the basis of the lawsuit?
Maybe you hate racial stuff so much, you try too hard to be obtuse.
I never brought up NC, you did. Read back. I posted the same SCOTUS ruling you did before you did. WTH are you even talking about?
And the precedent is established through previous rulings. This is known as "case law". It doesn't mean laws were necessarily created from those cases, just decisions.
Nowhere in either Robert's or Thomas' opinion did THEY bring up race. Because their decision had NOTHING to do with race. It had to do with what body in a state is in control of making election rules. Prove me wrong, pull a statement from either decision where - in their own words, not another case - they even bring it up.
And why isn't it about race? Because gerrymandering is racist by your definition no matter which party does it. It hinges on tying minority groups to their voting patterns and allocating them most effectively to win as many districts as possible. Both parties do it.
And I don't "hate race stuff" - I hate fake race stuff.
BTW, what was the race of the Justice who wrote the dissent? You refuse to answer that question because it shatters your assertion that this is all about race.
OK I'll play
How and why do democrats gerrymander? What's the point and how do they execute it?
BS...UNLESS you bought a darn good lottery ticket...ZERO chance. I call you out as lying.
mean people that thump a bible, got to love it. they need to be deported to the middle east.
By voter districts and population.
I'm not saying that all Republicans states do it race but when it's done by race and it impacts black people negatively, it's the Republicans. Just look at the courts. Them the facts.
BS what? i sold my business at 49, i no longer live in the great state of Cali....
That was SCOTUS ruling, it came from a NC lower court appeal. But what difference does that make? Which is why I never brought up where it came from, once it hits SCOTUS it doesn't matter.
The big ruling on 6/27 (you know, yesterday) that everyone was up in arms about was Moore vs Harper. Allen v Milligan was early June, which is the one you posted yesterday like it was big new news 😆 . Remember my comment that you can't read dates very well? Well I'm the idiot for assuming you were talking about the right SCOTUS ruling. Lesson learned.
So now that you know which ruling we're talking about, find me the passage where Roberts or Thomas mentioned race, and please get back to me on how racist the dissenting Justice is. It's driving me crazy. I have to understand that.
Yes he does, he doesn't understand what is America and how it was built on change
"By voter districts" makes about as much sense as "NIL", which I will never let you live down.
It's the racial makeup of those districts based on how the people are expected to vote. The method and the result are the exact same. Just because dems cry racism in court and republicans don't doesn't mean it's not racist when they do it.
Them the facts 😆
I posted the rulings that my thread was about;
Allen vs Milligan.
I didn't post anything about Moore vs Harper. So I don't have anything to say about it. Start a thread about it and see if I comment on it haha
Now back to Allen vs Milligan, I did post both side mentioning race. Go to post 18. Roberts said minority voters (black people) and Thomas straight up said "black voters".
When 80 to 90+% of a race vote for one party, gerrymandering would ultimately involve race.
If 85% of white people voted for the Republican Party, you could say that gerrymandering their vote would be racially discriminatory. Since 85% of white people don't vote for either party, that won't work.
progress is mostly good, not 100%, but its hard to argue with the greatness of the USA>
You do know that NIL was joke, right? you seriously couldn't figure that out.
There is no evidence that the Dems gerrymander based on race, zero.
LOL, there would be no point. If "only" 80% of black people voted for Democrats, that would be characterized as a VERY poor showing for the Dems.
And white voters are fairly evenly split between Dems and Republicans so how would you gerrymander the white vote based on race? Why would you? To what end?
This is silly. But you knew that.
