Pennslvania Senate President to ignore state Supreme Court over gerrymandering

[kaelleria]

I guess EO's are only "constitutional" when your God-King decrees them?

God Emperor... get it right sheesh!


Although I do think Skovald would make a better president than Trump has been.

[Shadowferal]

Look forward to the Senate President's jail time when he refuses again.

[cubby]

Not at all. I just don’t believe the President has powers he himself claimed he lacked because congress doesn’t abide by his will. If Trump issued an EO denying the visa lottery or ending chain migration, I would call that just as illegal. But thanks for proving my point.

Did Obama really say he couldn't do what he did? Or is this just another one of your lies? If you have the proof, I would like to see a link with him directly saying he can't do what he then did.

[Slybak]

Oh, quite simple. The left’s support for Obana’s EO related to DACA.

DACA has nothing to do with separation of powers, despite the bleating of desperate buffoons who have no idea that Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a thing that exists.

[cubby]

DACA has nothing to do with separation of powers, despite the bleating of desperate buffoons who have no idea that Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a thing that exists.

Awwwwwww, you spoiled it. We were going to have fun with Walkin's trek down inconsistent lane.

Seriously though, it is at times beyond adorable that Trumpkins can so easily run through the mental gymnastics it takes to extol Obama's EO's but handwave away all the crap Cheeto does. Mildly astounding.

On topic, however, there was nothing wrong with the DACA EO - on top of which it was the right thing to do. Which continues to escape the GOP, at every turn.

[cubby]

“Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

March, 2011

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...sion-town-hall

It's too bad that DACA is a prosecutorial action, and not a legislative matter. I can't remember which branch is in charge of prosecutions . . . .

I know your answer will be to attack a source or something equally juvenile - it's about all you have in your holster atm. If you need more sources on the difference between enacting legislation and enforcing it, try www.google.com.

Edit: please quit calling me a liar. Just because you disagree with me doesn’t make me a liar. Your ignorance that Obama denied he has the authority before implementing DACA shows that you’re intebtionslly biased on where you get your information. But it doesn’t make me a liar.

I call you a liar when you lie - which you do quite a bit. I disagree with plenty of people and have no need to call them a liar, because they don't lie. And just in case you forgot, accurately describing someone's actions is NOT "name calling", it's being accurate. You Trumpsters never get that straight.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, what does that have to do with DACA?
@cubby did you read this before you trumpeted this guy? I thought you were intelligent. Now I’m starting to wonder.

Wow, yeah, I did. Apparently you did NOT. Come on back to us, partner, when you read up on the things you pretend to understand. I mean, holy shit, the paragraph that is SHOWN on the first hit on google explains how wrong you are. You don't even have to click on the link to read it. And you wonder why people question your word.

Remember, legislation vs enforcement are real things.

- - - Updated - - -

DACA has nothing to do with separation of powers, despite the bleating of desperate buffoons who have no idea that Section 103(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a thing that exists.

He didn't read it before he tried to bash, lol - he didn't even google it. Ignorance is all the Trumpsters have left at this point.

I do enjoy, however, that they try and link enforcing DACA with passing DACA. Subtle points like that go WAY over their heads - can't even hear the whooshing sound sometimes.

[cubby]

No, I read the actual act and not a journalist’s interpretation. Section 103. I think we’re done here. You’re more interested in lobbing insults even after I provide the evidence you request.

And you don't understand the first thing about legislation vs enforcement. But that's typical of your posts, all conjecture and no facts. We've been done with you for a long time, in case you haven't been paying attention.

I mean, you do understand that DACA was passed by Congress, right? And Obama's EO was an enforcement directive, which authority he was given by Congress, through DACA, right? Or haven't you put those pieces together yet?

[cubby]

You’re a liar.

See, you're getting the hang of it.

DACA was never passed by Congress. This is absurd. It’s clear to me you’re just another angry poster who doesn’t like reading. You really just said DACA was passed by Congress. And you accuse me of being stupid and a liar. We’re done. Please don’t quote my posts as I will no longer respond to you while you act in bad faith.

I misspoke in my last post - typing too fast with distractions all around me. Apologies.

I meant to say that DACA originated from Congress' action regarding immigration policy. However, as you accurately pointed out my error, DACA was not passed by Congress. And, I'll give you a further point, DACA was a bit of a stretch.

Take a lesson from me, when you're wrong (and you are wrong a LOT of the time), just admit and move on. That's what good forum behavior is all about.

[Machismo]

You’re a liar. DACA was never passed by Congress. This is absurd. It’s clear to me you’re just another angry poster who doesn’t like reading. You really just said DACA was passed by Congress. And you accuse me of being stupid and a liar. We’re done. Please don’t quote my posts as I will no longer respond to you while you act in bad faith.

"The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.[21] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.[22][21] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[21] The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferr...dhood_Arrivals

Technically, it did pass the House, but was filibustered in the Senate.

[cubby]

"The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.[21] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.[22][21] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[21] The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferr...dhood_Arrivals

Technically, it did pass the House, but was filibustered in the Senate.

The irony is that if it had become law, the GOP would have dumped in their tax overhaul bill.

Aside: your sig is very interesting.

[Machismo]

The irony is that if it had become law, the GOP would have dumped in their tax overhaul bill.

I'm just happy the GOP in Pennsylvania got busted for their corrupt shenanigans. Hopefully the same can be done in the other gerrymandered states, like North Carolina, Texas, and Maryland.

[Paranoid Android]

Such a HUGE victory today. I hope this becomes a wave and crushes biased gerrymandering everywhere. Since I'm a WOKE INDEPENDENT, this goes for both parties.

[cubby]

I'm just happy the GOP in Pennsylvania got busted for their corrupt shenanigans. Hopefully the same can be done in the other gerrymandered states, like North Carolina, Texas, and Maryland.

Alright - way to bring it back around. I too am very glad that Pennsylvania got nailed. I did find it interesting that the court denied cert - and as a shout-out to my new bud, @TheWalkinDude, I was surprised to discover that SCOTUS had not previously ruled on this matter before.

- - - Updated - - -

Such a HUGE victory today. I hope this becomes a wave and crushes biased gerrymandering everywhere. Since I'm a WOKE INDEPENDENT, this goes for both parties.

Agreed. Of course, as the Dems try to reel (did I spell that right? - real, as in fishing rod reel) is back to the idea of equality, the GOP will shout from their ignorant high heavens of bad faith and partisanship bias.

[Machismo]

Alright - way to bring it back around. I too am very glad that Pennsylvania got nailed. I did find it interesting that the court denied cert - and as a shout-out to my new bud, @TheWalkinDude, I was surprised to discover that SCOTUS had not previously ruled on this matter before.

The gerrymandering is pretty damn bad in some states, and the only solution will be for computers to generate the maps, leaving humans out of it. It's not even a complicated thing to do, base it off of population, try to maintain a minimum border length to area ratio.

[cubby]

The gerrymandering is pretty damn bad in some states, and the only solution will be for computers to generate the maps, leaving humans out of it. It's not even a complicated thing to do, base it off of population, try to maintain a minimum border length to area ratio.

I agree - I wasn't aware that computer generation, without human interference, was even a thing. I would be dollars to donuts that no one will enact that kind of thing, just because the loss of control or some other such nonsense. Out of curiosity, are there some sites that compare current gerrymandered states with what a computer generated one would look like?

[Machismo]

I agree - I wasn't aware that computer generation, without human interference, was even a thing. I would be dollars to donuts that no one will enact that kind of thing, just because the loss of control or some other such nonsense. Out of curiosity, are there some sites that compare current gerrymandered states with what a computer generated one would look like?

In reality, it's rather simple. we have access to census data, and the lines can simply be redrawn every census period. That way, it won't matter who is in power, just break up the congressional districts by population. Now, some people would argue that they should attempt to make the area of each district as even as possible, but that was the justification for the gerrymandering we currently see. Congressional districts should not be reliant on their size, but on their population. After all, land doesn't vote, people do.

As for computer models. I'm currently working with a company that is delving into something similar, so I will purposefully not discuss them.

Here's a site that showed it a little bit.

https://rantt.com/the-top-10-most-ge...a-bd962843ba1f

They used computer models in order to gerrymander the districts, so using them to make it legitimate is actually not that difficult. I think the biggest issue will be long-time congressmen will find themselves running against other incumbents, making things a bit uncomfortable on occasion.

[Slybak]

Lol, what does that have to do with DACA?

The "separation of powers" argument against DACA is that the Executive Branch is enforcing immigration statutes in a manner outside of the authority granted to it by Congress. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it omits the fact that 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) exists and, in it, Congress gave broad discretion to the Attorney General to administer the law. It's been used to successfully defend DACA against court challenges on multiple occasions.

They omit this either because they're too pig ignorant to look it up, or are confident in their cynicism that their dupes will eagerly parrot it.

So next time, do try to not step on your own balls while mindlessly regurgitating nonsense arguments.

[cubby]

Fantastic article laying out the legal reasoning behind the PA State ruling and SCOTUS' refusal to hear it. Alito's reasoning pretty much makes it clear that gerrymandering will remain a state issue, almost entirely (I could see the race aspects hitting SCOTUS' though).

[Travis B]

Pennsylvania state representative Cris Dush (R) is calling for the impeachment of all the Democrats on the state supreme court for their ruling that the gerrymandering was unconstitutional:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00f94fe95ade3

[Lenonis]

Pennsylvania state representative Cris Dush (R) is calling for the impeachment of all the Democrats on the state supreme court for their ruling that the gerrymandering was unconstitutional:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b00f94fe95ade3

This is really not a good look for the GOP. Legal experts say there is no basis for this and it just looks like a desperate party clinging to whatever they can do to retain power, even if they have to destroy the balance in government to do so.