Drip Drip Drip

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,993
4,545
New Oak City
So - you don't think that it's appropriate for the citizens of a state to decide their own laws?   There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents you from going anywhere ya want as a citizen of the US - but, your position seems to disregard the consideration of local priorities and concerns.  What's important for you in Oakland might not mean much to me in the Shenandoah Valley, and similarly, some of the things we care about here probably mean little to you.  I don't see that as a bad thing - why do you? 
I am not voting on issues in the Shenandoah Valley at all except inasmuch as I vote for a national Presidential candidate. My voting as a citizen of Oakland in the Presidential election should count exactly the same as the vote of a citizen of the Shenandoah Valley. That is fairness.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
I am not voting on issues in the Shenandoah Valley at all except inasmuch as I vote for a national Presidential candidate. My voting as a citizen of Oakland in the Presidential election should count exactly the same as the vote of a citizen of the Shenandoah Valley. That is fairness.
That's a bit narrower definition than your earlier comment in this thread, in which you said "Small states should get relegated."   

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
95,229
12,479
Earth
That's a bit narrower definition than your earlier comment in this thread, in which you said "Small states should get relegated."   
I'm fine with one-person-one-vote for Presidential elections. The more I think about it, the less I can justify any system that results in anything else.  A person casting a vote for President in Bald Knob, West Virginia should have exactly the same effect as someone casting a vote for President in Beaver Crossing, Nebraska.

Small states have protection...in the Senate, where the House's hot soup was meant to go cool off a bit. 

 

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist
C'mon Bus - what about my comment indicates that I approve of gerrymandering?  I think that the state courts SHOULD straighten it out, and that this decision establishes that they have that authority, and with it, that responsibility.   The downside of this decision is that I doubt is that the majority party in any state in which the districts aren't drawn fairly is going to feel compelled to take up the issue absent fear of voter reprisal.  So - pragmatically, I think that the voters need to push it if we expect any action to be taken. 
It was not my intention to imply you favor gerrymandering, and if I came across that way - I apologize.

I was just wondering about your take on where the responsibility now lies - with the voters or the state courts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,993
4,545
New Oak City
States by themselves are a gerrymandering.

In related news, the Supremes ruled against the citizenship question and 'conservatives' are quite upset. Their boy Shitstain has asked to delay the Constitutionally mandated census because ... I don't really have a joke here. Shitstain asked to delay the Constitutionally mandated census.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
95,229
12,479
Earth
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
The best part about today's court ruling is 3 of those same conservatives - who say citizens can use nonpartisan commissions - were in the minority back in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_Legislature_v._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission

it's like it's just situational bullshit for them.
Legal Realism: the jurisprudential school of thought that judges just do whatever the fuck they want, irrespective of law, precedent, etc. 

It is a small and cynical group of people who hold such beliefs...

and I count myself among them. 

 

El Borracho

Verified User
6,827
2,788
Pacific Rim
Legal Realism: the jurisprudential school of thought that judges just do whatever the fuck they want, irrespective of law, precedent, etc. 

It is a small and cynical group of people who hold such beliefs...

and I count myself among them. 
Yes. Those times when they cannot find a way to avoid answering the question they revert to crafting all-too-clever opinions. Scalia, for example, was an expert at wrapping utter bullshit in flamboyant false prose.

But much of the fault lies with congress and the voters being unwilling to resolve anything important. So it is left to the courts.

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
95,229
12,479
Earth
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
That's a lie the Conservative Court loves to peddle. It's more than happy to overrule the will of the voters when it's necessary to keep power vested in the best Americans. The judges don't do anything they want, they do what their masters want - just look at where Scalia died.
Scalia?  He was murdered by statists in the basement of a pizza parlor. This I can tell you belief me. Many people are saying it and they are saying it very strongly. 

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
What did you mean by post 20266 if not that you have little faith in improvement? 
Its nuanced - I dont think we will see much change or improvement in the near term, but I think that our population is overall positive and resilient, and, like happened in the civil war,  prohibition, the great depression, the turmoil of the 60s, we will eventually get past this and be better off. 

 

El Borracho

Verified User
6,827
2,788
Pacific Rim
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
That's a lie the Conservative Court loves to peddle. It's more than happy to overrule the will of the voters when it's necessary to keep power vested in the best Americans. The judges don't do anything they want, they do what their masters want - just look at where Scalia died.
Like I wrote: The lawmakers and the people could do something about the big issues., e.g. abortion, guns, gerrymandering, immigration, executive overreach, even amend the constitution if the had any ambition. The people are sedated on Kadarshians. The lawmakers mostly goof around trying to hold onto power.

Amending the constitution...that document which controls the mental midgets on the court, has been amended for things of lesser import.

Amending the constitution would be a progressive thing.

 

hasher

Super Anarchist
6,800
1,146
Insanity
Yes. Those times when they cannot find a way to avoid answering the question they revert to crafting all-too-clever opinions. Scalia, for example, was an expert at wrapping utter bullshit in flamboyant false prose.

But much of the fault lies with congress and the voters being unwilling to resolve anything important. So it is left to the courts.
Justice Scalia loved his hunting trips into south Georgia and being one of the "boys".  The culture there believes Catholics are devil worshipers.  He went there on plantations.  This is life.  He was an intellectual?  He wanted the end.  He used his brain to do contortions to make right which is not right.  It gilded his life.

I doubt he had a moral bone in his body.  It was all ego.  Far too common.

 

Latest posts




Top