Merrill v. Milligan

[Spartans9312]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf

By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court halts a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its Congressional map.

That means Louisiana map will most likely withstand VRA challenges.

Worst case scenario for Democrats was SCOTUS to stay Alabama decision & then order a full trial which could lead to SCOTUS undoing much of the VRA. That is exactly what is happening now.

 

[TMFT]

The Gerrymandering Project – FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis - hard numbers - to tell compelling stories about elections, politics and American society.

fivethirtyeight.com

The podcast series about the 538 gerrymandering project is a few years old but definitely worth a listen.

The issues with gerrymandering and complying with the VRA go a whole lot deeper than the lefty orthodoxy of "R's bad, D's good" when it comes to district drawing. It's a really complicated issue that can have good (and bad) faith positions on multiple sides and it can be hard to clearly distinguish which is which.

 

[larsIU]

Can anybody explain why this won't make gerrymandering worse across the board, across the country. Both D and R districts?

Are we really supposed to believe the people that get voted in from these gerrymandered districts are going to do something about it. Gloves off now I guess. The bloodsport continues.

 

[Spartans9312]

Lots can happen between now and the Supreme Court’s final decision in this case. But yesterday’s decision is ominous for Democrats. Kavanaugh, who is probably the swing vote in this case, wrote that Section 2 law is “notoriously unclear and confusing”—joined by Alito

 

[TMFT]

Can anybody explain why this won't make gerrymandering worse across the board, across the country. Both D and R districts?

Are we really supposed to believe the people that get voted in from these gerrymandered districts are going to do something about it. Gloves off now I guess. The bloodsport continues.

Another great blast from the past addressing how broken the system is because of gerrymandering. Obama took a LOT of crap from people for his speaking style like he was a putz or something. But I honestly don't think there has been a single president since probably Nixon that would have been able to speak intelligently fully extemporaneously for 10 minutes on civic engagement. A big MAYBE for Clinton, HW Bush, & Reagan. But definitely not the current or former presidents.

 

[larsIU]

View embedded media

Another great blast from the past addressing how broken the system is because of gerrymandering. Obama took a LOT of crap from people for his speaking style like he was a putz or something. But I honestly don't think there has been a single president since probably Nixon that would have been able to speak intelligently fully extemporaneously for 10 minutes on civic engagement. A big MAYBE for Clinton, HW Bush, & Reagan. But definitely not the current or former presidents.

I always felt Obama was, in a self censoring way, often dumbing his speech down a bit. I have a feeling in private he's a hell of a conversation.

 

[Spartans9312]

The Obama/Holder DOJ was surprisingly passive on redistricting—perhaps smartly, as the Kennedy Court was also not particularly liberal on the VRA. “Sue ‘til blue” didn’t become the strategy until later in the decade

 

[TMFT]

I always felt Obama was, in a self censoring way, often dumbing his speech down a bit. I have a feeling in private he's a hell of a conversation.

I apologize, I realize I wasn't being clear in my post.

I meant that I was really impressed with how he was able to express himself in that clip and that Obama is the only president since Nixon I can see being able to do that. I agree with you that he's probably better in private.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf

By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court halts a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its Congressional map.

That means Louisiana map will most likely withstand VRA challenges.

Worst case scenario for Democrats was SCOTUS to stay Alabama decision & then order a full trial which could lead to SCOTUS undoing much of the VRA. That is exactly what is happening now.

but as long as blacks and women are on the court, isn't that more important than defending democracy and elections.

idiocracy.

every day all day, the corporate media do all they can to make judicial appointments about race and gender, to make sure their idiot viewers and readers and listeners, never focus on the important stuff.

our judiciary is just as bought and paid for as our legislatures.

and our legislators and our highest judges plan to make sure it stays that way.

 

[larsIU]

I apologize, I realize I wasn't being clear in my post.

I meant that I was really impressed with how he was able to express himself in that clip and that Obama is the only president since Nixon I can see being able to do that. I agree with you that he's probably better in private.

Haha. No issues. I got what you were trying to say. Agree on Obama and Nixon being the best orators since WWII. I suspect FDR was pretty good but it was wayyyyy before my time and I'm not looking it up.

 

[Spartans9312]

but as long as blacks and women are on the court, isn't that more important than defending democracy and elections.

idiocracy.

every day all day, the corporate media do all they can to make judicial appointments about race and gender, to make sure their idiot viewers and readers and listeners, never focus on the important stuff.

our judiciary is just as bought and paid for as our legislatures.

and our legislators and our highest judges plan to make sure it stays that way.

The headstone for the VRA will have Marc Elias name on it.
Democrat self-own

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Gerrymandering Project – FiveThirtyEight

FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis - hard numbers - to tell compelling stories about elections, politics and American society.

fivethirtyeight.com

The podcast series about the 538 gerrymandering project is a few years old but definitely worth a listen.

The issues with gerrymandering and complying with the VRA go a whole lot deeper than the lefty orthodoxy of "R's bad, D's good" when it comes to district drawing. It's a really complicated issue that can have good (and bad) faith positions on multiple sides and it can be hard to clearly distinguish which is which.

The problem with gerrymandering is that it feels icky, but (except for race gerrymandering) it is legally okay. If SCOTUS were to ever rule it unconstitutional, we can kiss off many principles we hold dear.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The problem with gerrymandering is that it feels icky, but (except for race gerrymandering) it is legally okay. If SCOTUS were to ever rule it unconstitutional, we can kiss off many principles we hold dear.

such as?

and money buying our political parties and legislators and regulators and presidents and governors and judiciary, and lobbyists writing our laws, are all perfectly legal too..

what's legal that shouldn't be, is what's wrong with our govt, and Russia's, and China's.

"it's legal" should never be a defense of anything that is inherantly wrong.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The headstone for the VRA will have Marc Elias name on it.
Democrat self-own

A), make your case, which you didn't even attempt to do.

B) who or what is responsible for injustice and wrong, has exactly zero bearing on it's being unjust or wrong.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

such as?

and money buying our political parties and legislators and regulators and presidents and governors and judiciary, and lobbyists writing our laws, are all perfectly legal too..

what's legal that shouldn't be, is what's wrong with our govt, and Russia's, and China's.

"it's legal" should never be a defense of anything that is inherantly wrong.

Separation of powers and federalism are the biggies. Then we have freedom of speech and association because any court order in that regard will will increase power of major parties at the expense of any chance of a third party movement. They have rigged the whole system now in favor of major parties. The Democrats are even working feverishly to make the country a one party system with their disqualification clause and federal election law nonsense.

States can self impose antI- gerrymandering requirements. But there is no way a court can order that or congress can do that, nor should there be.

 

[Spartans9312]

A), make your case, which you didn't even attempt to do.

B) who or what is responsible for injustice and wrong, has exactly zero bearing on it's being unjust or wrong.

Because He sued to overturn 30 years of bipartisan consensus in Alabama, the most conservative Supreme Court in a century is about to take up the VRA for the first time since he lost Brnovich.

 

[outside shooter]

There's no freakin' way any district ought to look like this:

Simple common sense guidelines such as basing districts on adjacent townships/counties/parishes

Computer programs can do a good job of logically and fairly dividing up geographic regions.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Haha. No issues. I got what you were trying to say. Agree on Obama and Nixon being the best orators since WWII. I suspect FDR was pretty good but it was wayyyyy before my time and I'm not looking it up.

I don't know. I think you have to include Clinton.

 

[larsIU]

I don't know. I think you have to include Clinton.

You're right of course. But he feels reallll icky these days as more and more shit comes out. I wonder if they're just waiting for him to die before they unload the Epstein files.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Separation of powers and federalism are the biggies. Then we have freedom of speech and association because any court order in that regard will will increase power of major parties at the expense of any chance of a third party movement. They have rigged the whole system now in favor of major parties. The Democrats are even working feverishly to make the country a one party system with their disqualification clause and federal election law nonsense.

States can self impose antI- gerrymandering requirements. But there is no way a court can order that or congress can do that, nor should there be.

"Separation of powers and federalism are the biggies. Then we have freedom of speech and association because any court order in that regard will will increase power of major parties at the expense of any chance of a third party movement".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

was that word salad suppose to explain or defend anything?



no idea what your point was, or how gerrymandering helps 3rd parties.

if you actually have a case to make, try doing it better. much better. and making it intelligible.

 

[TMFT]

I firmly believe the only way to end partisan gerrymandering (which should feel wrong) AND give 3rd parties a chance to get reps in is to move to proportional representation for state congressional delegations.

The process is to make seats proportional with a threshold percentage to earn a seat, say 10%. Each party runs a slate of candidates picked in their primaries for all 9 seats in Indiana, for example, ranked from 1-9. If the Rs carry 50%, Ds carry 35%, and Ls carry 15%, then the seats would be apportioned L-1, D-3, R-5. As opposed to the current R-7, D-2, L-0. The converse would figure to happen in states like NY & CA, or really any state that is non-competitive as a whole.

The upside is that voters have a better chance of having votes determine the election instead of insider process and the representatives would potentially be representative of their constituents.

The downsides, and believe me I know these are fatal to the plan, are that (1) It would lack the personal touch of a local Congressman regardless of the fact most people don't exactly know their local rep, (2) since all reps would technically be statewide, it could hurt constituent service, (3) people hate bucking tradition, & (4) it could be illegal per the VRA.

 

[TMFT]

There's no freakin' way any district ought to look like this:

Simple common sense guidelines such as basing districts on adjacent townships/counties/parishes

Computer programs can do a good job of logically and fairly dividing up geographic regions.

The Illinois 4th is a really weird one that gets brought up in one of the Gerrymandering Project podcast episodes if I recall correctly.

What it's doing is combining two predominantly Hispanic areas of the city into a single majority-minority district. The weird rub to it is that one part is Mexican-American, the other part is Puerto Rican. So not exactly unifying a particular cultural enclave. Does that comply with the letter or spirit of the VRA? Who the heck knows any more.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I don't know. I think you have to include Clinton.

Haha. No issues. I got what you were trying to say. Agree on Obama and Nixon being the best orators since WWII. I suspect FDR was pretty good but it was wayyyyy before my time and I'm not looking it up.

I apologize, I realize I wasn't being clear in my post.

I meant that I was really impressed with how he was able to express himself in that clip and that Obama is the only president since Nixon I can see being able to do that. I agree with you that he's probably better in private.

yes, some people are much better and more effective liars than others.

Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama, and Trump, are all masterful liars, with absolutely zero conscience about it.

and the "zero conscience" thing, is what makes them such great liars.

that "conscience" thing, is always apt to produce a "tell".

 

[Spartans9312]

There's no freakin' way any district ought to look like this:

Simple common sense guidelines such as basing districts on adjacent townships/counties/parishes

Computer programs can do a good job of logically and fairly dividing up geographic regions.

Geographical compactness, county & city integrity, COI & proportionality.

 

[larsIU]

yes, some people are much better and more effective liars than others.

Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama, and Trump, are all masterful liars, with absolutely zero conscience about it.

and the "zero conscience" thing, is what makes them such great liars.

that "conscience" thing, is always apt to produce a "tell".

Yeah, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev were all pretty good too.

Transparency at the highest levels of any government seems to be a problem. Leaders lie, distort, etc. I live by this credo:

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours - HST

Even at a corporate level most conversation is constructed to try and gain something, or to at least not risk losing too much. Guess what - nobody's telling the WHOLE truth. The smart ones understand that and recognize the playing field.

With rare exceptions, outside of my house (and even in it), I don't expect the full truth. There's always reading between the lines and discerning what somebody is trying to convey through the message they deliver. Often you learn more by recognizing the lie and what they are lying about.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Haha. No issues. I got what you were trying to say. Agree on Obama and Nixon being the best orators since WWII. I suspect FDR was pretty good but it was wayyyyy before my time and I'm not looking it up.

JFK?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yeah, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev were all pretty good too.

Transparency at the highest levels of any government seems to be a problem. Leaders lie, distort, etc. I live by this credo:



Even at a corporate level most conversation is constructed to try and gain something, or to at least not risk losing too much. Guess what - nobody's telling the WHOLE truth. The smart ones understand that and recognize the playing field.

With rare exceptions, outside of my house (and even in it), I don't expect the full truth. There's always reading between the lines and discerning what somebody is trying to convey through the message they deliver. Often you learn more by recognizing the lie and what they are lying about.

yes, the problem in the US is the same as the problem in Russia regarding this.

it's that the media doesn't do it's job calling out the liars on their lies.

instead, they reinforce the lies, as the same Wall St that owns the govt, owns all media as well..

except in Russia that problem is theoretically fixable, while in the US it isn't.

that's because in Russia, the media still has human control, whereas in the US, it effectively doesn't.

in the US all media is corporate owned, thus has no long term human control.

only a human figurehead we see as in control, but ultimately isn't long term.

any publicly held corporation with no single person or family controlling 51% of the voting shares, doesn't have a human steering it, but is being completely controlled by an inanimate amoral algorithm, the capitalism algorithm, no different than an artificial intelligence would be, with no human being able to over ride the algorithm long term.

the human figurehead can only push the buttons the algorithm tells them to.

if they don't, the algorithm will have them replaced with someone who will.

crazy, i know. unfortunately true.