This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

finally some common sense about to come from Supreme Court

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

The Notorious RBG bitchslaps Neil Gorsuch:

Toward the end of the Supreme Court’s argument in Gill v. Whitford, about the future of partisan gerrymandering, there was a revealing moment about the place of the newest Justice in the esteem of at least one of his peers. In less than a year, Neil Gorsuch has dominated oral arguments, lectured his colleagues, and given dubiously appropriate public speeches. Questioning Paul Smith, the lawyer challenging Wisconsin’s contorted district lines, Gorsuch made another pedantic gesture.

The argument had gone on for nearly an hour when Gorsuch began a question as follows: “Maybe we can just for a second talk about the arcane matter of the Constitution.” There was a rich subtext to this query. Originalists and textualists such as Gorsuch, and his predecessor on the Court, Antonin Scalia, often criticize their colleagues for inventing rights that are not found in the nation’s founding document. Gorsuch’s statement that the Court should spare “a second” for the “arcane” subject of the document was thus a slap at his ideological adversaries; of course, they, too, believe that they are interpreting the Constitution, but, in Gorsuch’s view, only he cares about the document itself.

Gorsuch went on to give his colleagues a civics lecture about the text of the Constitution. “And where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear—if you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2.” In other words, Gorsuch was saying, why should the Court involve itself in the subject of redistricting at all—didn’t the Constitution fail to give the Court the authority to do so?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is bent with age, can sometimes look disengaged or even sleepy during arguments, and she had that droopy look today as well. But, in this moment, she heard Gorsuch very clearly, and she didn’t even raise her head before offering a brisk and convincing dismissal. In her still Brooklyn-flecked drawl, she grumbled, “Where did ‘one person, one vote’ come from?” There might have been an audible woo that echoed through the courtroom. (Ginsburg’s comment seemed to silence Gorsuch for the rest of the arguments.)

In one cutting remark, Ginsburg summed up how Gorsuch’s patronizing lecture omitted some of the Court’s most important precedents, and Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.

In short, Ginsburg was saying to Gorsuch that he and his allies might control the future of the Supreme Court, but she wasn’t going to let them rewrite the history of it—at least not without a fight.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch

You go, Girl!

Constitutional "originalists" like Gorsuch are the same sort of intellectually defective reactionary scum that insist that the bible is literal truth.

View user profile
This decision is extremely important, and do not be fooled that both sides have abused gerrymandering. In Illinois, the districts look like snakes and dragons as they try to get the most democratic votes. I think this is simple. A little bit of gerrymander is political, but a lot is constitutional violations. I think the plus 7 minus 7 range does allow quantification and is a viable standard. Not perfect but objective when politics evolve into constitutional transgressions.

View user profile
Well, sea, if it turns out to be good decision, hold onto it, as that may be the last one you like from this court.

View user profile
They should have to start concentric circles at city centers enclosing population in set numbers.

Done... next issue.

Edit: won't happen of course because the two party system is entrenched and corrupt.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:They should have to start concentric circles at city centers enclosing population in set numbers.

Done... next issue.

Edit: won't happen of course because the two party system is entrenched and corrupt.

Wonderful! PkrBoy belches, farts and adds absolutely ZERO value to the discussion.

Well done, you ignorant, racist, pedophile-apologist piece-of-cracker-shit!

Here's a video of his hero:



What a disgusting human being you are, PkrBoy!

View user profile
Concentric circles.....wtf.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
PkrBum wrote:They should have to start concentric circles at city centers enclosing population in set numbers.

Done... next issue.

Edit: won't happen of course because the two party system is entrenched and corrupt.

Wonderful! PkrBoy belches, farts and adds absolutely ZERO value to the discussion.

Well done, you ignorant, racist, pedophile-apologist piece-of-cracker-shit!

Here's a video of his hero:



What a disgusting human being you are, PkrBoy!




It's a GOP thing.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Concentric circles.....wtf.

Ok... squares. Sheesh... lol.

Any standard shape that encloses equal amounts of citizens without regard to party or race or anything.

Why is this so hard?

View user profile
Your concentric circles conceptually misses the issue. The issue is simple math. An objective formula is being developed to determine where a district has been packed, and votes are wasted in a particular party, or a district is cut out to give an advantage to one or another party. The formula is not set in stone, but allows a range of discrepancy plus or minus which is allowable political gerrymandering. An example may be a river town which has the town split into two distinct geographic areas. Politically, the map drawer might want to have the representative align with the entire town. If it is not perfect, that is political redistricting, but when that line is drawn and the amount of people packed or excluded exceeds plus or minus 7 percent, that drawn map may be considered unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court will NOT adopt any one of these formulas but will prescribe a blending of the three major ones. It is really bad in Illinois where a Republican in the suburbs which has a republican majority suddenly finds the district jutting into cook county where the democrats now are the majority of voters in what always has been a republican district. What the republicans did in Wisconsin is obviously unconstitutional.

View user profile
Unless the formula ignores your qualifiers it will be abused... again and again. There has to be a neutral design. The first circle in a large city will undoubtedly be small because of the population density... and it will be dominated by dems. Rightly so. As the circles move out they will expand to reflect less density and the political leanings will be mixed. At the outer reaches the rural population is most likely pub. The system must be set and not subject to politicization.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum