Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

    Gee Thanks SCOTUS

    "The conservative-majority court granted a bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to suspend the Jan. 9 order by a federal court panel in Greensboro that gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly until Jan. 24 to come up with a new map for U.S. House of Representatives districts.

    Two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, objected to the high court’s action.

    The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order reduces the chance that the current district lines will be altered ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. The court offered no reason for its decision."
    "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
    -aparch

    "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
    -INCH

    Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
    -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
      Gee Thanks SCOTUS

      "The conservative-majority court granted a bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to suspend the Jan. 9 order by a federal court panel in Greensboro that gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly until Jan. 24 to come up with a new map for U.S. House of Representatives districts.

      Two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, objected to the high court’s action.

      The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order reduces the chance that the current district lines will be altered ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. The court offered no reason for its decision."
      Consolidate all the gerrymanders in one case and rule once and for all. Though the court may eat a frankfurter and punt it back to the legislatures.
      CCT '77 & '78
      4 kids
      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
      - Benjamin Franklin

      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

      Comment


      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

        Originally posted by joecct View Post
        Consolidate all the gerrymanders in one case and rule once and for all. Though the court may eat a frankfurter and punt it back to the legislatures.
        We don't need SCOTUS to solve this. Congress can just pass a........





        Oh.
        Jordan Kawaguchi for Hobey!!
        Originally posted by Quizmire
        mns, this is why i love you.

        Originally posted by Markt
        MNS - forking genius.

        Originally posted by asterisk hat
        MNS - sometimes you gotta answer your true calling. I think yours is being a pimp.

        Originally posted by hockeybando
        I am a fan of MNS.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MinnesotaNorthStar View Post
          We don't need SCOTUS to solve this. Congress can just pass a........





          Oh.
          No, they can't. The Constitution leaves apportionment up to the States.
          CCT '77 & '78
          4 kids
          5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
          1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

          ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
          - Benjamin Franklin

          Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

          I want to live forever. So far, so good.

          Comment


          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

            Did the Democrats in Wisconsin just undercut their own case?

            Special election, a Democrat just won a seat that had been held by Republicans since 2001, in a district carried by R in 2016 by 17 points.

            Oops. I guess maybe now there is empirical data to indicate that Democrats can win in a district that supposedly had been gerrymandered to be a safe Republican seat.....


            Also, in a more serious vein, Democrats used to hold majorities in a lot of states, and exercised their own gerrymandering priorities during those majority years, yet somehow Republicans now hold majorities in those states now. Maybe gerrymandering isn't quite so failsafe as it has been portrayed? again, just looking at data, how could majorities switch from one party to the other so broadly if gerrymandering really were as pernicious as is being portrayed, if the actual election results over time don't reflect the expected outcome?
            Last edited by FreshFish; 01-19-2018, 07:34 AM.
            "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

            "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

            "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

            "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

            Comment


            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

              Personally, I'd prefer neither party be in control of drawing district lines, and I'd like to see district lines generally be as contiguous as possible based on the only SCOTUS directive out there, that districts be as equal in population as can be (pending the next wave of migration, which is why we redraw lines every ten years). However, it also seems to me that it has to be decided by each state how they want to handle it and that SCOTUS really can't let itself get dragged into what is primarily a political issue, not a judicial one.

              What is needed, IMHO, is more citizen activism and less backroom secret action, which means we the people actually need to get out and assert ourselves in public, and not simply hide behind some anonymous screen on an internet chat board.
              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                Did the Democrats in Wisconsin just undercut their own case?

                Special election, a Democrat just won a seat that had been held by Republicans since 2001, in a district carried by R in 2016 by 17 points.

                Oops. I guess maybe now there is empirical data to indicate that Democrats can win in a district that supposedly had been gerrymandered to be a safe Republican seat.....


                Also, in a more serious vein, Democrats used to hold majorities in a lot of states, and exercised their own gerrymandering priorities during those majority years, yet somehow Republicans now hold majorities in those states now. Maybe gerrymandering isn't quite so failsafe as it has been portrayed? again, just looking at data, how could majorities switch from one party to the other so broadly if gerrymandering really were as pernicious as is being portrayed, if the actual election results over time don't reflect the expected outcome?
                This post clearly indicates you have no idea how gerrymandering actually works.

                Comment


                • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                  Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                  Did the Democrats in Wisconsin just undercut their own case?

                  Special election, a Democrat just won a seat that had been held by Republicans since 2001, in a district carried by R in 2016 by 17 points.

                  Oops. I guess maybe now there is empirical data to indicate that Democrats can win in a district that supposedly had been gerrymandered to be a safe Republican seat.....


                  Also, in a more serious vein, Democrats used to hold majorities in a lot of states, and exercised their own gerrymandering priorities during those majority years, yet somehow Republicans now hold majorities in those states now. Maybe gerrymandering isn't quite so failsafe as it has been portrayed? again, just looking at data, how could majorities switch from one party to the other so broadly if gerrymandering really were as pernicious as is being portrayed, if the actual election results over time don't reflect the expected outcome?
                  My lord you cant honestly be this stupid. Tell your programmer to restart you...
                  "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                  -aparch

                  "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                  -INCH

                  Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                  -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                  Comment


                  • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                    Gee Thanks SCOTUS

                    "The conservative-majority court granted a bid by Republican legislators in North Carolina to suspend the Jan. 9 order by a federal court panel in Greensboro that gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly until Jan. 24 to come up with a new map for U.S. House of Representatives districts.

                    Two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, objected to the high court’s action.

                    The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order reduces the chance that the current district lines will be altered ahead of the November mid-term congressional elections. The court offered no reason for its decision."
                    This isn't surprising as they've often done this. Seems like IMHO they're gearing up to (gasp) write new law and decide this issue once and for all this term. Once again this will hinge on what Anthony Kennedy had for lunch and how much sleep he got the night before, because every major decision of the last 25 years have revolved around him. The other 8 votes are baked in 4-4. I know the efficiency gap is the argument they're using to appeal to him and its actually a better one as you can apply it throughout the country hence undoing Dem gerrymanders as well (IL, MD) Or they could do nothing which would pretty much kill all these lawsuits for awhile. Should know by this summer and I'd suspect all other lower court rulings on this subject to be stayed until then.
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rover View Post
                      This isn't surprising as they've often done this. Seems like IMHO they're gearing up to (gasp) write new law and decide this issue once and for all this term. Once again this will hinge on what Anthony Kennedy had for lunch and how much sleep he got the night before, because every major decision of the last 25 years have revolved around him. The other 8 votes are baked in 4-4. I know the efficiency gap is the argument they're using to appeal to him and its actually a better one as you can apply it throughout the country hence undoing Dem gerrymanders as well (IL, MD) Or they could do nothing which would pretty much kill all these lawsuits for awhile. Should know by this summer and I'd suspect all other lower court rulings on this subject to be stayed until then.
                      There bad words (write new law) in your post, but otherwise I agree. Courts can't write laws. Only a legislature may.

                      However, that doesn't stop the courts from trying and doing.
                      CCT '77 & '78
                      4 kids
                      5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                      1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                      ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                      - Benjamin Franklin

                      Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                      I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                        Originally posted by joecct View Post
                        There bad words (write new law) in your post, but otherwise I agree. Courts can't write laws. Only a legislature may.

                        However, that doesn't stop the courts from trying and doing.
                        So, in the spirit of full disclosure I'd like to see the court set a standard that curbs gerrymandering. Having said that, I'm counting on Kennedy's seeming desire to be known as the most influential justice of the century to help guide his ruling. Do nothing = no legacy building. Bring gerrymandering to a heel and the accolades start writing themselves. One way or the other he's coming to the end of the line (wasn't he nominated by Reagan a lifetime ago?). Adding this as a capstone to his career (saving Roe v Wade, gay marriage, etc) might be a little too tempting to pass up. He also seems to want to end solitary confinement as well but that doesn't quite have the pizzazz of this potential ruling.
                        Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                        Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                        "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                          Originally posted by joecct View Post
                          There bad words (write new law) in your post, but otherwise I agree. Courts can't write laws. Only a legislature may.

                          However, that doesn't stop the courts from trying and doing.
                          You think John Marshall got it wrong in Marbury v. Madison?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/u...mandering.html

                            Supremes tell GOP to **** off on Pennsylvania redistricting because of gerry mandering by Republicans.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                              https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/u...mandering.html

                              Supremes tell GOP to **** off on Pennsylvania redistricting because of gerry mandering by Republicans.
                              Yeah, but:

                              “Granting review of this case,” lawyers for Mr. Wolf wrote, “would represent an unprecedented encroachment on the rights of state courts to delineate the boundaries of state law.”

                              Lawyers for the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, which challenged the state’s congressional map along with several voters, were even more direct. “There is no partisan gerrymandering exception to federalism,” they wrote.
                              I could be wrong but if the Court accepts that then I read that as them saying you can cheat as much as you want assuming you control the entire state apparatus. That would be an overall win for Republican voter suppression and gerrymandering.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment


                              • Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

                                The gist of it is the Pennsylvania supreme court overturned the GOP's congressional maps based on state, not federal law. Under the guise of federalism that tied the SCOTUS hands to intervene. Most court cases such as WI, TX, etc were argued in federal court, hence the stay that the SCOTUS keeps imposing on those rulings.

                                So, the basic idea would be to get a favorable ruling in state court, sorta how Florida worked out (citizens initiative banned incumbent protection, then GOP map lost in state court). Off the top of my head Dems control NC court while GOP has WI court. Not 100% sure about VA, OH, or MI to name a few.

                                EDIT: But yes to Kep's question. Provided the maps didn't violate federal law (as in if GA drew a map that produced zero minority-majority districts for example) if you have control of all 3 branches of government in a state for an extended period of time you could certainly get creative. North Carolina for example has taken this to the extreme.
                                Last edited by Rover; 02-05-2018, 03:52 PM.
                                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X