Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More gop gerrymandering shenanigans struck down in texas

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by cigarettesandtea View Post

    They are serving as employees of the federal government and engaged in governing at the federal level, so I continue to agree with me.
    Senators serve the state govt and representatives serve the people of their district not the federal govt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post

      Senators serve the state govt and representatives serve the people of their district not the federal govt.
      The purpose of gerrymandering is to allow representatives to serve a subset of the people of their district, intentionally denying another subset of the people in their district any voice in the federal government. Distorting representation is the whole point of it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

        The purpose of gerrymandering is to allow representatives to serve a subset of the people of their district, intentionally denying another subset of the people in their district any voice in the federal government. Distorting representation is the whole point of it.
        I agree gerrymandering is bullshit. My point is that the federal govt has no business telling the states how they decide who will represent them, this should have been handled at the state level.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post

          I agree gerrymandering is bullshit. My point is that the federal govt has no business telling the states how they decide who will represent them, this should have been handled at the state level.
          It was, and the states decided black people shouldn't have a voice. You don't see the problem there?

          You can argue it's unconstitutional to deny states equality in sovereignty, or the right to decide whether or not they sideline negroes in favour of white folk, but it is also unconstitutional to sideline negroes in favour of white folk. They may have started out as three fifths of a person, but that is not supposed to be the case these days. It's a constitutional infringement either way so the question then becomes, which is worse? Do you want to prioritise the constitutional freedom of the states to suppress the constitutional freedom of the citizens of the states, or do you want to prevent the states from being able to do that even if it means an unconstitutional power grab from the fed? The post VRA SC has consistently come down on one side of that question, even when striking down parts of the VRA.

          The answer is simple and thoroughly established. The People have rights under the constitution that the States simply cannot infringe.

          Comment


          • #20
            Yes, I see it as the federal govt trampling on states rights.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post
              Yes, I see it as the federal govt trampling on states rights to oppress black people in violation of the constitutional rights of the people.
              Fleshed that out for ya.

              Comment


              • #22
                You sure did!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post
                  You sure did!
                  And you still stand by what you said?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by biker View Post

                    Says the great political mind who thinks a redistricting in a GOP state will mean more Dem seats
                    So what's your argument here? That gerrymandering isn't really an issue in this case because it isn't going to work as intended?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post
                      Yes, I see it as the federal govt trampling on states rights.
                      So I guess you are cool with this?

                      https://www.wired.com/2017/03/want-g...ar-california/

                      As someone who grew up in shops before cat converters and emissions standards, this is fucking insane. I can smell a car running even slightly rich (Dodges are the worst even now). It is not pleasant.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Independent districting commissions is a must.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AnalHamster View Post

                          And you still stand by what you said?
                          Yes. The federal govt shouldn't have the authority to force a state to re gerrymander it's districts in order to get the election results that it wants.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DandyDon View Post

                            So I guess you are cool with this?

                            https://www.wired.com/2017/03/want-g...ar-california/

                            As someone who grew up in shops before cat converters and emissions standards, this is fucking insane. I can smell a car running even slightly rich (Dodges are the worst even now). It is not pleasant.
                            Well the federal govt does have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce so if California state laws are negatively affecting residents of other states they can intervene.

                            On an unrelated subject, a friend of mine owns an auto repair shop, he mentioned to me that all these emission regulations are killing mileage. What's your take?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post

                              Yes. The federal govt shouldn't have the authority to force a state to re gerrymander it's districts in order to get the election results that it wants.
                              That is the opposite of what they are doing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pete rose haircut View Post
                                Yes, I see it as the federal govt trampling on states rights.

                                LOL, so redistricting that serves no purpose other than to mute the voice of one demographic is a state right? Hell, then you should support sharia law as a state right, or maybe slavery as a state right, perhaps indentured servitude?

                                To be fair though, gerrymandering is NOT a GOP only issue. I am amazed how Maryland and other Democrat majority states have not been hammered in the courts for this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X