Gerrymandering

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm - I think the Supreme Court is probably correct here. Whilst the state Legislatures should act in the interests of the State and States in this matter I don't think the courts should be able to decide how elections are managed. If you want impartiality it needs to be written into the Constitution.

You seem to be making a technical argument, and from a technical standpoint, you are correct. However, it condemns my country's experiments in Democracy to a rapid demise. Once Montmercy's chart slides to the 34 state legislature tally point, all hell is going to break loose as the GOP enshrines itself as a one-party permanent ruler... either directly or indirectly. They will modify the constitution to ensure every election aftewards is decided in their favor. Just look at what Mitch McConnel has been able to accomplish over the past 9 years without that power.

America's lurch into a false-Christian autrocratic theocracy will greatly accelerate on the heels of this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You seem to be making a technical argument, and from a technical standpoint, you are correct. However, it condemns my country's experiments in Democracy to a rapid demise. Once Montmercy's chart slides to the 34 state legislature tally point, all hell is going to break loose as the GOP enshrines itself as a one-party permanent ruler... either directly or indirectly. They will modify the constitution to ensure every election aftewards is decided in their favor. Just look at what Mitch McConnel has been able to accomplish over the past 9 years without that power.

America's lurch into a false-Christian autrocratic theocracy will greatly accelerate on the heels of this.

Technical arguments are important. It can be argued that the tendency of the Supreme Court to "over-interpret" the Constitution in the past is what has led you to this point.

The judiciary need to be a-political or the average American cannot be expected to have any faith in them. If you're expecting your Supreme Court to wilfully misinterpret your Constitution to protect you from your democratically elected legislature then, well, things have already gone far to far, haven't they?

[rory_20_uk]

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

[Don Corleone]

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

That's a good start boss, but you're missing the end goal. The entire point of gerrymandering (and voter disenfranchisement, as practiced so audaciously by Brian Kemp here in Georgia in 2018), is to counteract the effects of demographics. The whole point is that the 35% remain immune to the effects of the majority, staying in power regardless of the odds against them.

The rallying cry on the Trump-right right now betrays their thinking on this "The United States never was, and was never intended to be, a Democracy". Implied in that is that government by and for the 35% who support Trump is ordained in our Constitution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Implied in that is that government by and for the 35% who support Trump is ordained in our Constitution.

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

The theory of the Separation of Powers (Central to the US Constitution) implies that if the districts were not meant to be gerrymandered then the role of defining them would have been given to another branch than the Legislature, such as a commission appointed by the Executive.

One also notes that the US Constitution theorises the inevitable collapse of the Republic, which is why the several States have their own militarises.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

Remember, though, Rome is always falling.

[Montmorency]

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

The theory of the Separation of Powers (Central to the US Constitution) implies that if the districts were not meant to be gerrymandered then the role of defining them would have been given to another branch than the Legislature, such as a commission appointed by the Executive.

One also notes that the US Constitution theorises the inevitable collapse of the Republic, which is why the several States have their own militarises.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

Remember, though, Rome is always falling.

That horse is a wild animal, you can't saddle it, let alone stable it.

Now check out the amendments to the Constitution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That horse is a wild animal, you can't saddle it, let alone stable it.

Now check out the amendments to the Constitution.

Like the Second Amendment that everybody always takes out of context and misinterprets?

[Montmorency]

Like the Second Amendment that everybody always takes out of context and misinterprets?

OK, huh? I'm not sure what you mean. How about we get down to brass tacks: I'm doubt you have well-founded theories of what the Constitution says or entails. Since we're talking about a specific decision on a particular political controversy, to develop a position here about the implications or legal reasoning underlying the Court's decision, read and make reference to Robert's decision, Kagan's dissent, or case analysis.

Otherwise it's just "Englishman Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Lost Colonies' Constitution to Be"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

'Non people' is over-stating things. Amerinds who were taxpayers were full citizens. Those enslaved were .6 people. That definition is my nation's "original sin," but with 40+ percent of the population in slave-holding states, the original 13 could never have established a nation without compromise on this issue. And virtually no society gave the "distaff" any real status.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

But that takes a LOT. Sulla Felix marched on Rome in 88 BCE, but it was not until 27 BCE that the republic truly ceased to exist. Nevertheless, your point is valid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'Non people' is over-stating things. Amerinds who were taxpayers were full citizens. Those enslaved were .6 people. That definition is my nation's "original sin," but with 40+ percent of the population in slave-holding states, the original 13 could never have established a nation without compromise on this issue. And virtually no society gave the "distaff" any real status.

What about the "that's him" laws where whites in Southern states could effectively enslave blacks within line of sight?

[Montmorency]

Hmmm - I think the Supreme Court is probably correct here. Whilst the state Legislatures should act in the interests of the State and States in this matter I don't think the courts should be able to decide how elections are managed. If you want impartiality it needs to be written into the Constitution.

What is your Constitutional argument for believing that attempts to disenfranchise populations and undermine the integrity of the vote are non-justiciable at the federal level? Which was basically Chief Roberts' core holding.

Technical arguments are important. It can be argued that the tendency of the Supreme Court to "over-interpret" the Constitution in the past is what has led you to this point.

The judiciary need to be a-political or the average American cannot be expected to have any faith in them. If you're expecting your Supreme Court to wilfully misinterpret your Constitution to protect you from your democratically elected legislature then, well, things have already gone far to far, haven't they?

*sigh*

It's the other way around, and that horse is a wild animal, what were you thinking trying to mount it. The courts are routinely partisan in willfully misinterpreting the Constitution* to suit their ideological precepts - typically toward the Right - and it's as well-established as apple pie in America.

*More commonly just legislation I believe, because the Supreme Court is the final appeals court, not merely a constitutional court.

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

You're attributing blame to the wrong place - the Democratic Party is experiencing a revolt by its most conservative dozen or two dozen Reps - and the wrong concept - compromise is not the deficit, deliberate Reagan-over-the-shoulder assimilationism toward Republican priorities is. The left wing of the Dem party is exactly the one increasingly-vocally expressing the need for procedural radicalism in countering Republican illegitimacy.

[Strike For The South]

America's lurch into a false-Christian autrocratic theocracy will greatly accelerate on the heels of this.

Buddy this about the protection of capital. The theocracy is just a happy coincidence.

[Don Corleone]

Buddy this about the protection of capital. The theocracy is just a happy coincidence.

It's a blind. The peasants don't care how much money the Mercers or the Koch's have stashed away. You gotta give them something they can understand.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a blind. The peasants don't care how much money the Mercers or the Koch's have stashed away. You gotta give them something they can understand.

Peasents only care if they can't feed their family or keep them safe.

About the only other thing they might care about is their immortal soul.

We elites often forget that.