1. #1461
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They ruled 5-4 along party lines. This was after Trump was able to nominate two people to the Court. It's reasonable to think that gerrymandering would have already been shot down.

    That's why 2016 was so huge, and will continue to be huge for more than a generation.
    Gerrymandering would have been shot down? That's...not what the case was about at all...nor what the SCOTUS would have ruled on overall.

  2. #1462
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Gerrymandering would have been shot down? That's...not what the case was about at all...nor what the SCOTUS would have ruled on overall.
    It shows that the SCOTUS would have been willing to look at those cases, instead of denying them entirely. If the Dems had their 4-5 majority, which is what they would have had, and it was ruled along party lines like it had been, then that's what the outcome would have been.

  3. #1463
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Gerrymandering would have been shot down? That's...not what the case was about at all...nor what the SCOTUS would have ruled on overall.
    Of interest; Biden and his court reform panel

  4. #1464
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It shows that the SCOTUS would have been willing to look at those cases, instead of denying them entirely. If the Dems had their 4-5 majority, which is what they would have had, and it was ruled along party lines like it had been, then that's what the outcome would have been.
    Yes, but that's a poor band-aide on a bigger structural problem, which is kinda an issue.

  5. #1465
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Yes, but that's a poor band-aide on a bigger structural problem, which is kinda an issue.
    That could have actually fixed part of the structural problem. It could have meant the end of gerrymandering.

  6. #1466
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That could have actually fixed part of the structural problem. It could have meant the end of gerrymandering.
    Which could only happen legislatively, not from the judicial branch. Again, it wouldn't have fixed the problem, that requires legislation at the state/federal level. The SCOTUS couldn't end gerrymandering as a practice if they wanted to, it's not in their authority.

  7. #1467
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Which could only happen legislatively, not from the judicial branch. Again, it wouldn't have fixed the problem, that requires legislation at the state/federal level. The SCOTUS couldn't end gerrymandering as a practice if they wanted to, it's not in their authority.
    They could have ruled that those state laws and actions were unconstitutional.

  8. #1468
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They could have ruled that those state laws and actions were unconstitutional.
    Except they wouldn't have ruled that. All they'd have done is reviewed cases brought in front of the SCOTUS, if they chose to hear/rule on one. The SCOTUS couldn't declare gerrymandering unconstitutional dude, that's my bloody point.

    The best they could do under the current system is bat down really bad gerrymandering on racial lines, and as we've seen with ones they've previously struck down that doesn't always lead to relief for those affected. Again, at best it's a band-aid for a problem that requires a legislative solution. This is a misunderstanding of how the branches of government work.

  9. #1469
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except they wouldn't have ruled that. All they'd have done is reviewed cases brought in front of the SCOTUS, if they chose to hear/rule on one. The SCOTUS couldn't declare gerrymandering unconstitutional dude, that's my bloody point.

    The best they could do under the current system is bat down really bad gerrymandering on racial lines, and as we've seen with ones they've previously struck down that doesn't always lead to relief for those affected. Again, at best it's a band-aid for a problem that requires a legislative solution. This is a misunderstanding of how the branches of government work.
    If the liberals had controlled it, they would have been able to do it... that's the point.

    You think the SCOTUS isn't willing to overstep its authority a little bit? They would say they are willing to hear election cases, and would look into any challenges to those laws.

  10. #1470
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    If the liberals had controlled it, they would have been able to do it... that's the point.
    Now you're talking about weaponizing the courts, specifically the SCOTUS, as a partisan ideological weapon. Something that even Republicans haven't fully realized as they've been disappointed with the opinions of some of the conservative members they confirmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You think the SCOTUS isn't willing to overstep its authority a little bit?
    The liberal wing? No, absolutely not. Especially not in the especially visible and egregious way you seem to think they would.

    Again, you don't seem to understand the function of the branches of government, even as some have been attempted to be weaponized in bad faith. We can complain about Republican court packing, we can complain about Republican bullshit with the SCOTUS, but at the end of the day the judicial branch does not make legislation.

  11. #1471
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Now you're talking about weaponizing the courts, specifically the SCOTUS, as a partisan ideological weapon. Something that even Republicans haven't fully realized as they've been disappointed with the opinions of some of the conservative members they confirmed.



    The liberal wing? No, absolutely not. Especially not in the especially visible and egregious way you seem to think they would.

    Again, you don't seem to understand the function of the branches of government, even as some have been attempted to be weaponized in bad faith. We can complain about Republican court packing, we can complain about Republican bullshit with the SCOTUS, but at the end of the day the judicial branch does not make legislation.
    The SCOTUS is weaponized, and has been for years.

    It's not really that complicated. If the SCTOUS was liberal heavy, the would have almost certainly said they would hear gerrymandering cases from the state level. That is shown by the ruling on a party-line basis.

    They don't need to make legislation, merely rule on other legislation, as well as government action.

    I never said they made legislation.

  12. #1472
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's not really that complicated. If the SCTOUS was liberal heavy, the would have almost certainly said they would hear gerrymandering cases from the state level. That is shown by the ruling on a party-line basis.
    Except that a great many of these cases would never make it to the SCOTUS and, again, it's at best a band-aide to a legislative problem as has been repeatedly pointed out. The judiciary can't fix a legislative problem that requires new legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They don't need to make legislation, merely rule on other legislation, as well as government action.
    Rule on what legislation? Districting is something that's not done via a piece of legislation. And again, this is only "after the fact" and is a terrible, awful, no-good non-solution to an ongoing problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I never said they made legislation.
    No, but again, the way you keep discussing the topic in relation to the SCOTUS makes it seem otherwise. You're conflating judicial and legislative duties and responsibilities.

  13. #1473
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except that a great many of these cases would never make it to the SCOTUS and, again, it's at best a band-aide to a legislative problem as has been repeatedly pointed out. The judiciary can't fix a legislative problem that requires new legislation.



    Rule on what legislation? Districting is something that's not done via a piece of legislation. And again, this is only "after the fact" and is a terrible, awful, no-good non-solution to an ongoing problem.



    No, but again, the way you keep discussing the topic in relation to the SCOTUS makes it seem otherwise. You're conflating judicial and legislative duties and responsibilities.
    They can be appealed to the SCOTUS, or could have if the Dems were in charge.

    Courts are also allowed to rule on governmental action.

  14. #1474
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    They can be appealed to the SCOTUS, or could have if the Dems were in charge.
    Sure and it's largely a slow, arduous process that often doesn't matter. Case in point: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/73184...-federal-court

    In a 2016 case, the Supreme Court struck down the GOP redistricting map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Those maps were nonetheless used in the 2018 election because Republican lawmakers told the lower courts that they had not done any preparation to redraw the maps and would need considerable time to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Courts are also allowed to rule on governmental action.
    Some government actions, largely in relation to their Constitutionality. There is nothing in the Constitution about political gerrymandering so again, the only time the courts would get involved is when other laws like the Voting Rights Act are potentially violated due to racial, rather than partisan, gerrymandering.

    The only fix for partisan gerrymandering is legislative. The courts, again, can largely do little more than bat down the occasional egregious example...and then hope that it will actually matter for the next election because there's enough time to redraw them. Amusingly, I believe that case turned into the 2019 case that the SCOTUS threw out because...this time the lines weren't gerrymandered using racial data, they were purely legal political gerrymandering.

    Because the thrust of the issue is that partisan gerrymandering isn't illegal on a federal level, and is completely 100% legal in a great many states. Again, something which can only be resolved via legislation. The courts have no solution, only temporary band-aides for the gaping headwound.

  15. #1475
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Sure and it's largely a slow, arduous process that often doesn't matter. Case in point: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/73184...-federal-court





    Some government actions, largely in relation to their Constitutionality. There is nothing in the Constitution about political gerrymandering so again, the only time the courts would get involved is when other laws like the Voting Rights Act are potentially violated due to racial, rather than partisan, gerrymandering.

    The only fix for partisan gerrymandering is legislative. The courts, again, can largely do little more than bat down the occasional egregious example...and then hope that it will actually matter for the next election because there's enough time to redraw them. Amusingly, I believe that case turned into the 2019 case that the SCOTUS threw out because...this time the lines weren't gerrymandered using racial data, they were purely legal political gerrymandering.

    Because the thrust of the issue is that partisan gerrymandering isn't illegal on a federal level, and is completely 100% legal in a great many states. Again, something which can only be resolved via legislation. The courts have no solution, only temporary band-aides for the gaping headwound.
    Yes, it is slow, and would likely take years. That would still be better than it literally never happening.

    Here's the thing, it was almost ruled that courts could rule on gerrymandering. It was a 5-4 split, with the conservatives in charge. Now, if the Liberals were in charge, then that would have meant them declaring that they are allowed (and willing) to rule on gerrymandering.

    Yes, it should be done legislatively, but that means relying on politicians being honorable...

  16. #1476
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, it is slow, and would likely take years. That would still be better than it literally never happening.
    Whatever happens, happens. SCOTUS wouldn't change that one way or the other, and one could easily argue that making partisan gerrymandering worse by not weighing in will lead to more popular support for bi/non-partisan districting legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Here's the thing, it was almost ruled that courts could rule on gerrymandering. It was a 5-4 split, with the conservatives in charge. Now, if the Liberals were in charge, then that would have meant them declaring that they are allowed (and willing) to rule on gerrymandering.
    But again, it doesn't have a huge impact. It's super easy to continue to gerrymander along partisan lines for unfair advantage -

    https://election.princeton.edu/2019/...2021-strategy/

    A slight improvement over the previous egregious redistricting, but far, far, far from what it was even in 2008.

    Sure, it's the "less bad" option and I'd prefer they ruled on it, personally. But I buy the legal argument - SCOTUS isn't there to get in the middle of partisan poltiical fights - and even if they still were going to take up gerrymandering cases would rather there be legislative protections in place rather than hoping a case can make it to the SCOTUS before an election, early enough to redraw the lines so it will actually matter.

  17. #1477
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Whatever happens, happens. SCOTUS wouldn't change that one way or the other, and one could easily argue that making partisan gerrymandering worse by not weighing in will lead to more popular support for bi/non-partisan districting legislation.



    But again, it doesn't have a huge impact. It's super easy to continue to gerrymander along partisan lines for unfair advantage -

    https://election.princeton.edu/2019/...2021-strategy/

    A slight improvement over the previous egregious redistricting, but far, far, far from what it was even in 2008.

    Sure, it's the "less bad" option and I'd prefer they ruled on it, personally. But I buy the legal argument - SCOTUS isn't there to get in the middle of partisan poltiical fights - and even if they still were going to take up gerrymandering cases would rather there be legislative protections in place rather than hoping a case can make it to the SCOTUS before an election, early enough to redraw the lines so it will actually matter.
    Honestly, if gerrymandering hasn't changed people's minds by now, it never will. In the end, people don't really give a shit if their side is corrupt. Elections are about winning, and people don't mind cheating to get there. That's why it's not going to get legislated away.

  18. #1478
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Honestly, if gerrymandering hasn't changed people's minds by now, it never will. In the end, people don't really give a shit if their side is corrupt. Elections are about winning, and people don't mind cheating to get there. That's why it's not going to get legislated away.
    I mean...you could say the same thing about weed legalization, yet it's happening from state to state. Say the same thing about gay marriage, yet it's now federally protected.

    I doubt anyone thinks it will be easy to address legislatively, but that's the proper way to do it. But that's the thing: Important changes/improvements are rarely easy and usually face stiff opposition (see something discussed earlier, the ACA! which is now majority popular and has completely altered the national discussion on health care and health insurance) but they're worth doing.

  19. #1479
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean...you could say the same thing about weed legalization, yet it's happening from state to state. Say the same thing about gay marriage, yet it's now federally protected.

    I doubt anyone thinks it will be easy to address legislatively, but that's the proper way to do it. But that's the thing: Important changes/improvements are rarely easy and usually face stiff opposition (see something discussed earlier, the ACA! which is now majority popular and has completely altered the national discussion on health care and health insurance) but they're worth doing.
    Except, weed legalization is growing in popularity, and can help win elections. The party in charge can use gerrymandering to continue winning elections. Getting rid of it is literally legislating away your advantage.

    Take Maryland as an example. The Dems control the state (GOP governor), and gerrymandered the shit out of it in 2014.

  20. #1480
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    When it comes to attacking liberties, there's not much difference between progressives and conservatives. The only real difference, is which freedoms you guys prefer to target. And yes, I am ashamed of my fellow so-called conservatives, because like you, most don't give a shit about liberty.

    When I was wholeheartedly supporting legalizing gay marriage (for more than 20 years, now), which powerful entity was I advocating for?

    The same goes for legalizing drugs.

    And prostitution.

    And abortion.

    Are you saying I'm a corporatist for Planned Parenthood?
    Those are about laws not regulations. Regulations tend to be rules businesses have to follow and can be found in the CFR.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •