FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
One conclusion I've seen that makes sense to me is that Roberts et al take the fact that they are the most powerful justices in the country seriously, in that they want to show their talent and prowess. So they want actual legal matters to rule on, and not just partisan gobbledegook.
One conclusion I've seen that makes sense to me is that Roberts et al take the fact that they are the most powerful justices in the country seriously, in that they want to show their talent and prowess. So they want actual legal matters to rule on, and not just partisan gobbledegook.
or that too many patently-bullshit Calvinball rulings are harder for them to justify and increase the likelihood of people deciding to change or outright ignore the Court.
EDIT: and here we are at 100, so I'll ask again - any volunteers to make the next one?
In theory, if the law was changed (I know it won't but hypothetically) to require pre-clearance nationwide, that would surely pass Constitutional muster, right?
In theory, if the law was changed (I know it won't but hypothetically) to require pre-clearance nationwide, that would surely pass Constitutional muster, right?
In theory, if the law was changed (I know it won't but hypothetically) to require pre-clearance nationwide, that would surely pass Constitutional muster, right?
I have seen that argued.
But don't ask me, ask the unelected god-kings.
Can't. I don't own a private jet or a megayacht to take them to.
I gather the impeachment threat might not go anywhere their board that determines if judges are party to misconduct, has said that that there is no way they can impeach the new judge if she doesn't recuse herself and that requiring her to do so would get very messy because every other justice on the board would likely also have to recuse themselves. Given that most, if not all of them have done what the GOP is accusing her off, including all the conservative justices.
I gather the assholes in charge of the GOP for Wisconsin is consulting with his lawyers. I get the feeling, assuming he doesn't have Trump tier judges, is that they are probably telling him he should not allow impeach to go through because they don't have a god damn leg to stand on, which means even the current shit SCOTUS will probably tell them they are out of line.
I suspect someone could file a cause in court asking for federal intervention in the event that WI republicans try to remove a democratically elected judge a purely bullshit grounds because the the WI GOP are violating the rights of voters to fair representation.
It's also possible that the courts could say they are staying the fuck out of the mess. I'd wager if the GOP does try to impeach her, should could refuse to step down and Evers could refuse to do anything to make her step down. At which point unless the federals courts intervene on the WI GOP)'s behalf, they are shit out of luck. Could be funny if things go that route and the federal courts say that they aren't stepping in and since the executive and judiciary branches of WI disagree with the GOP legislature, well the GOP legislature is shit out of luck.
As shitty as I current SCOTUS is. I think enough of the conservatives can read the room and determine that siding with the WI GOP on impeaching a judge that the voters put there partly because they aren't aren't happy with the GOP's gerrymandering is not a good look; especially, since their party wants the WH and they need WI to not go blue. "Fuck you voters, we get to keep our bullshit gerrymander and you lose the judge you picked!" Is a great way to ensure that the voters decide "well fuck you and fuck your party's presidential candidate!"
Though I'm increasingly thinking that the shitheads of the court on banking on the idea that the republicans will flip enough seats in the Senate, that we'll have a split Congress after 2024 and that it's not worth their effort to do anything to save republicans at the House level. Hell, even in the worst case, they might be banking on democrats either not having a unified enough majority or the will to go after weakening the federalist society's hold on the court in the only way that is going to be open.
The death rattle of the hallowed First-in-the-Nation Iowa Democratic Caucuses took a while to subside. But now it’s done. Yes, Iowa Democrats will still get together in precinct gatherings on January 15, the same day when Iowa Republicans caucus to formally launch the 2024 Republican nominating contest. But thanks to a national party mandate insisted upon by President Joe Biden, there will be no presidential preference balloting at the Democratic caucuses. A separate, mail-in ballot process will culminate in the announcement of the results on March 5, Super Tuesday, safely outside the “early state” window Iowa once dominated, and in the midst of a cascade of votes that will confirm Biden’s nomination.
Shockingly (not shockingly), after the NC supreme court changed their mind earlier this year and said extreme partisan gerrymanders actually ARE okay after throwing them out two years ago, NC is redrawing its lines to be comically ridiculous.
Based on my initial look at the two NC GOP congressional plans, one is a 11R-3D plan (+4R, -4D) that merges Davis & Foushee and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
The other is a 10R-3D-1C that makes Davis's #NC01 competitive and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
As someone in NC, I hate it here. Jeff Jackson has really gained a following nationally due to his TikTok where he calmly (and generally unbiasedly) breaks down what is going on in Congress, so naturally they had to remove his seat.
And let’s not forget it all tracks back down to a “democrat” in one of the bluest areas of the state who magically became a Republican overnight right after being elected. (Citation)
Shockingly (not shockingly), after the NC supreme court changed their mind earlier this year and said extreme partisan gerrymanders actually ARE okay after throwing them out two years ago, NC is redrawing its lines to be comically ridiculous.
Based on my initial look at the two NC GOP congressional plans, one is a 11R-3D plan (+4R, -4D) that merges Davis & Foushee and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
The other is a 10R-3D-1C that makes Davis's #NC01 competitive and eliminates Manning, Jackson and Nickel.
It boggles my mind how they're able to get away with this at all, let alone that they've gotten away with it for so long. This kind of gerrymandering should be criminal.
How the hell do you even get an 11R-3D split in a state that elected a Democrat as Governor? You'd have to make the Democratic districts like 95-5 split or somesuch nonsense. I mean maybe the candidates for Governor were the greatest Democrat of the era vs a literal child molester or something?
Being able to get an 11-3 split out of a state that is within spitting distance of a 50-50 partisan makeup is absurd.
I mean, that's how gerrymandering works. And it's not even as extreme as it could be. eg with 14 districts, let's say you split them as:
11 districts that are 55R-45D = 605R / 495D
3 districts that are 30R-70D = 90R / 210D
None of the R districts are really competitive, and the Dems would even outnumber Rs under that math (695R to 705D). In NC, Rs do outnumber Ds, so it's even easier to make it lopsided with just one or two exceedingly blue districts.
Wasserman did note that both their proposals are likely to run afowl of the VRA under the racial gerrymandering stuff for not creating a black majority district, one of the few things that this Supreme Court is enforcing.
How the hell do you even get an 11R-3D split in a state that elected a Democrat as Governor? You'd have to make the Democratic districts like 95-5 split or somesuch nonsense. I mean maybe the candidates for Governor were the greatest Democrat of the era vs a literal child molester or something?
Being able to get an 11-3 split out of a state that is within spitting distance of a 50-50 partisan makeup is absurd.
How? Tribalism.
This thing shouldn't be possible if people actually considered policy and voting for what's best for themselves, their community, their state (and in federal elections, their country).
Instead, 90% of voters vote for the candidate that aligns with their chosen identity, not their policy positions.
That's why gerrymandering works. Because the people in those areas will reliably vote for "that party", regardless of candidate quality, or policy positions.
I know the legislators (and the courts) get a lot of the blame for this shit, and rightly so. But the electorate going "Welp, what am I gonna do, vote for the other party?" isn't blameless here.
And while it's heavily weighted for Republicans (because they can't really win a fair election with an informed electorate on policy and candidate quality), it's not unilateral either.
Blue states try to do it (though the courts don't tend to be as complicit), and in some places, Democrats sell out their own party for the security of a safe seat.
I don't know much about Clyburn (not being a South Carolinian), but he is often a voice I agree with, when he speaks. But this is some bullshit.
But he's also not likely to be primaried, and if so, not likely to be at risk of defeat. Because he's a Democrat with name recognition, in a Democrat area, and people will just vote name ID in the primary, and (D) in the general.
Posts
or that too many patently-bullshit Calvinball rulings are harder for them to justify and increase the likelihood of people deciding to change or outright ignore the Court.
EDIT: and here we are at 100, so I'll ask again - any volunteers to make the next one?
I have seen that argued.
But don't ask me, ask the unelected god-kings.
Can't. I don't own a private jet or a megayacht to take them to.
Wisconsin Supreme Court taking up gerrymandering, which the Republican legislature has threatened to impeach people if they do.
I gather the assholes in charge of the GOP for Wisconsin is consulting with his lawyers. I get the feeling, assuming he doesn't have Trump tier judges, is that they are probably telling him he should not allow impeach to go through because they don't have a god damn leg to stand on, which means even the current shit SCOTUS will probably tell them they are out of line.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Only if those laws are superseded by federal law/the constitution. Which happens a decent amount.
Easy example. A state cannot make slavery legal and SCOTUS can determine that a states law that says that is unconstitutional.
Second easy example: Roe v Wade was about a state law.
It's also possible that the courts could say they are staying the fuck out of the mess. I'd wager if the GOP does try to impeach her, should could refuse to step down and Evers could refuse to do anything to make her step down. At which point unless the federals courts intervene on the WI GOP)'s behalf, they are shit out of luck. Could be funny if things go that route and the federal courts say that they aren't stepping in and since the executive and judiciary branches of WI disagree with the GOP legislature, well the GOP legislature is shit out of luck.
As shitty as I current SCOTUS is. I think enough of the conservatives can read the room and determine that siding with the WI GOP on impeaching a judge that the voters put there partly because they aren't aren't happy with the GOP's gerrymandering is not a good look; especially, since their party wants the WH and they need WI to not go blue. "Fuck you voters, we get to keep our bullshit gerrymander and you lose the judge you picked!" Is a great way to ensure that the voters decide "well fuck you and fuck your party's presidential candidate!"
Though I'm increasingly thinking that the shitheads of the court on banking on the idea that the republicans will flip enough seats in the Senate, that we'll have a split Congress after 2024 and that it's not worth their effort to do anything to save republicans at the House level. Hell, even in the worst case, they might be banking on democrats either not having a unified enough majority or the will to go after weakening the federalist society's hold on the court in the only way that is going to be open.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And let’s not forget it all tracks back down to a “democrat” in one of the bluest areas of the state who magically became a Republican overnight right after being elected. (Citation)
It boggles my mind how they're able to get away with this at all, let alone that they've gotten away with it for so long. This kind of gerrymandering should be criminal.
Being able to get an 11-3 split out of a state that is within spitting distance of a 50-50 partisan makeup is absurd.
11 districts that are 55R-45D = 605R / 495D
3 districts that are 30R-70D = 90R / 210D
None of the R districts are really competitive, and the Dems would even outnumber Rs under that math (695R to 705D). In NC, Rs do outnumber Ds, so it's even easier to make it lopsided with just one or two exceedingly blue districts.
Wasserman did note that both their proposals are likely to run afowl of the VRA under the racial gerrymandering stuff for not creating a black majority district, one of the few things that this Supreme Court is enforcing.
How? Tribalism.
This thing shouldn't be possible if people actually considered policy and voting for what's best for themselves, their community, their state (and in federal elections, their country).
Instead, 90% of voters vote for the candidate that aligns with their chosen identity, not their policy positions.
That's why gerrymandering works. Because the people in those areas will reliably vote for "that party", regardless of candidate quality, or policy positions.
I know the legislators (and the courts) get a lot of the blame for this shit, and rightly so. But the electorate going "Welp, what am I gonna do, vote for the other party?" isn't blameless here.
And while it's heavily weighted for Republicans (because they can't really win a fair election with an informed electorate on policy and candidate quality), it's not unilateral either.
Blue states try to do it (though the courts don't tend to be as complicit), and in some places, Democrats sell out their own party for the security of a safe seat.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-rep-james-clyburn-protected-his-district-at-a-cost-to-black-democrats
"How Rep. James Clyburn Protected His District at a Cost to Black Democrats"
I don't know much about Clyburn (not being a South Carolinian), but he is often a voice I agree with, when he speaks. But this is some bullshit.
But he's also not likely to be primaried, and if so, not likely to be at risk of defeat. Because he's a Democrat with name recognition, in a Democrat area, and people will just vote name ID in the primary, and (D) in the general.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/248604/the-battle-over-voting-rights-continues