It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It basically could mean the end of mandatory union dues in the public sector. Instant free rider problem as people quit the union, stop paying dues, but still get to keep all the benefits of being in the union.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+4
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
So Justice Alito was either stupid or deliberately dishonest during Tuesday's arguments on gerrymandering (WaPo Link):
He [Alito] waited until the closing minutes and hit Paul M. Smith, the lawyer arguing against the Wisconsin plan, with the last question of the argument.
“You paint a very dire picture about gerrymandering and its effects,” Alito said, “but I was struck by something in the seminal article by your expert, Mr. McGhee, and he says there, ‘I show that the effects of party control on bias are small and decay rapidly, suggesting that redistricting is at best a blunt tool for promoting partisan interests.’ So he was wrong in that?”
The question baffled Smith, who said he would need to see the context.
“Well,” Alito retorted, “that’s what he said.”
No, it isn’t.
I called Eric McGhee, the expert, after the argument. The quote Alito pulled was not from the “seminal article” McGhee co-wrote proposing the legal standard for gerrymandering at the center of the case. It was from an earlier McGhee paper, using data from the 1970s through 1990s. In the paper at the center of the case, by contrast, “we used updated data from the 2000s,” McGhee told me, “and the story is very different. It’s gotten a lot worse in the last two cycles. . . . The data are clear.”
Why would Alito resort to this sleight of hand? Perhaps because it’s clear that if he stuck to the facts, he’d have to acknowledge that the growing abuse of gerrymandering threatens democracy.
If Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive he would shed a tear over how well his conservative acolytes are holding up his reputation of being a legal hack.
So Justice Alito was either stupid or deliberately dishonest during Tuesday's arguments on gerrymandering (WaPo Link):
He [Alito] waited until the closing minutes and hit Paul M. Smith, the lawyer arguing against the Wisconsin plan, with the last question of the argument.
“You paint a very dire picture about gerrymandering and its effects,” Alito said, “but I was struck by something in the seminal article by your expert, Mr. McGhee, and he says there, ‘I show that the effects of party control on bias are small and decay rapidly, suggesting that redistricting is at best a blunt tool for promoting partisan interests.’ So he was wrong in that?”
The question baffled Smith, who said he would need to see the context.
“Well,” Alito retorted, “that’s what he said.”
No, it isn’t.
I called Eric McGhee, the expert, after the argument. The quote Alito pulled was not from the “seminal article” McGhee co-wrote proposing the legal standard for gerrymandering at the center of the case. It was from an earlier McGhee paper, using data from the 1970s through 1990s. In the paper at the center of the case, by contrast, “we used updated data from the 2000s,” McGhee told me, “and the story is very different. It’s gotten a lot worse in the last two cycles. . . . The data are clear.”
Why would Alito resort to this sleight of hand? Perhaps because it’s clear that if he stuck to the facts, he’d have to acknowledge that the growing abuse of gerrymandering threatens democracy.
If Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive he would shed a tear over how well his conservative acolytes are holding up his reputation of being a legal hack.
Which isn't particularly surprising, since computers really are a game changer for that. The amount of information that can be brought to bear and effectively utilized to draw lines around the right house is inconceivable in the 70's.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
Couscous on
+18
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
Seemed pretty clear to me:
so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power
"We're in power. Those people aren't. And it's never going to change as long as we have anything to say about it."
Gorsuch just doesn't understand the etiquette of the Supreme Court. He's like most notable conservative intellectuals, insufferable and unwilling to treat with the lesser orders (those being anybody who substantively disagrees with him), but willing to take time to ego stroke with his own perspicacity.
Scalia's dickishness came more in his opinions, but he was by all accounts a cordial person to work with.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Under Abood the mandatory payments cannot legally be used for political action, only dues, so your concern is already outlawed.
And no group should be able to free ride on the negotiations of a Union lawyer without paying them for their billables.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
I just want to point out that when I was a private attorney I had to do just that when I had multiple client funds in a single IOLTA account. It was never difficult to make sure Client A's money was tracked and never spent on Client B's legal tasks.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
[cite needed].
Do you have a problem with Lockheed donating to the fellows on the House Arms Services Committee? They are electing the people they are negotiating with there too.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
I just want to point out that when I was a private attorney I had to do just that when I had multiple client funds in a single IOLTA account. It was never difficult to make sure Client A's money was tracked and never spent on Client B's legal tasks.
It's certainly doable. I'm more skeptical about things like paid leave for campaigning or "volunteering" that is obviously not volunteer.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
I just want to point out that when I was a private attorney I had to do just that when I had multiple client funds in a single IOLTA account. It was never difficult to make sure Client A's money was tracked and never spent on Client B's legal tasks.
In many cases the advocacy arm is an entirely separate organization.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
[cite needed].
Do you have a problem with Lockheed donating to the fellows on the House Arms Services Committee? They are electing the people they are negotiating with there too.
Less of a problem but yeah. Regulatory capture is a problem and companies using profits from govt contracts to lobby is too.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
[cite needed].
Do you have a problem with Lockheed donating to the fellows on the House Arms Services Committee? They are electing the people they are negotiating with there too.
Less of a problem but yeah. Regulatory capture is a problem and companies using profits from govt contracts to lobby is too.
You mean companies using "$speech" they earned from government contracts to lobby.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
Even then it doesn't ensure those populations a chance at good representation, just enduring representation. Corrine Brown represented one of the most gerrymandered African-American districts in the country for over 20 years, actively fought against redistricting, and is now in prison on 18 counts of corruption. There's probably a healthy balance between "your vote doesn't count" and "your rep can stay in power forever no matter what" if we want to use gerrymandering for good.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
+3
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
So Justice Alito was either stupid or deliberately dishonest during Tuesday's arguments on gerrymandering (WaPo Link):
He [Alito] waited until the closing minutes and hit Paul M. Smith, the lawyer arguing against the Wisconsin plan, with the last question of the argument.
“You paint a very dire picture about gerrymandering and its effects,” Alito said, “but I was struck by something in the seminal article by your expert, Mr. McGhee, and he says there, ‘I show that the effects of party control on bias are small and decay rapidly, suggesting that redistricting is at best a blunt tool for promoting partisan interests.’ So he was wrong in that?”
The question baffled Smith, who said he would need to see the context.
“Well,” Alito retorted, “that’s what he said.”
No, it isn’t.
I called Eric McGhee, the expert, after the argument. The quote Alito pulled was not from the “seminal article” McGhee co-wrote proposing the legal standard for gerrymandering at the center of the case. It was from an earlier McGhee paper, using data from the 1970s through 1990s. In the paper at the center of the case, by contrast, “we used updated data from the 2000s,” McGhee told me, “and the story is very different. It’s gotten a lot worse in the last two cycles. . . . The data are clear.”
Why would Alito resort to this sleight of hand? Perhaps because it’s clear that if he stuck to the facts, he’d have to acknowledge that the growing abuse of gerrymandering threatens democracy.
If Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive he would shed a tear over how well his conservative acolytes are holding up his reputation of being a legal hack.
I think, in modern memory, Alito has always been the most willfully obtuse justice
Although Gorsuch has been gunning hard to become the new champion
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
This still doesn't play, because having 10 reps with constituencies made up of 15-20% latino populations, who won their distrcits by anything less than that, would require ALL of them to have to listen to latino issues, or else be in danger of voted out.
If you gerrymander the state to only have 1-2 heavy minority districts per state, you may get a representative who is acutely aware of their issues, but even if they all get together and vote like a bloc, there wouldn't be enough to not get drowned out by all the other reps, who only need to ever worry about pleasing white people.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
I disagree with the first part, namely because you don't need to look very far to see instances of specific groups being targetted by other areas of government, and recognize why having a representative that is more focused on representing that group might be important.
I just happen to think that minorities are actually better represented when a larger number of districts have to fight for their votes; if this wasn't the case, we'd have never seen them gerrymandered in the first place.
Javen on
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
In an ideal world where complete racial equality has been achieved, sure. But we aren't there, or arguably even close to it, really. Until then, there are going to be issues that impact a minority population exclusively or significantly more than others, and because of that I'm fine with ensuring a decent chance of a representative beholden to the minority on those issues (or at the very least making sure that map-drawers don't create districts purposefully avoiding that)
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
I disagree with the first part, namely because you don't need to look very far to see instances of specific groups being targetted by other areas of government, and recognize why having a representative that is more focused on representing that group might be important.
I just happen to think that minorities are actually better represented when a larger number of districts have to fight for their votes; if this wasn't the case, we'd have never seen them gerrymandered in the first place.
Tough nut to crack. You don't want to dilute a minority voice but you also don't want to manipulate districts for political gain.
He spent the recess doing photo ops for conservatives and touting his right-wing creds. Probably a lot.
I find myself at a loss to form any coherent response to the things Gorsuch does and says individually because my brain is still going "but but but what the fuck" at the sheer shadiness of Congressional republicans getting this Justice into his stolen seat in the first place
I know I should be inured to these things and focused on details moving forward but I'm mystified
How is there a conservative in this country who isn't apoplectic that this was pulled off in their name?
I just ... is it naive that I have an emotional response to this level of decorum and tradition being breached? I guess so.
He spent the recess doing photo ops for conservatives and touting his right-wing creds. Probably a lot.
I find myself at a loss to form any coherent response to the things Gorsuch does and says individually because my brain is still going "but but but what the fuck" at the sheer shadiness of Congressional republicans getting this Justice into his stolen seat in the first place
I know I should be inured to these things and focused on details moving forward but I'm mystified
How is there a conservative in this country who isn't apoplectic that this was pulled off in their name?
I just ... is it naive that I have an emotional response to this level of decorum and tradition being breached? I guess so.
Mitch McConnell hopefully is remembered in history as the person leading the party that broke our govt. Because that's what he did in my mind. It's not weird to continue to be upset about that.
+36
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.
“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”
Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
That did not seem a sufficient reason, Justice Sotomayor said, “to stack the decks.”
I am not sure Murphy even knew what she was arguing for with that sentence because it reads like gobblygook.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
It is not a separate, split off category but a subcategory of voters that would otherwise lack critical mass to affect standard community political processes for issues relevant to them but not to the majority in the district. For example, minority populations often have greater poverty and unemployment rates in neighborhoods defined by ethnic clustering, but poverty and unemployment is not an issue at large in a district where that neighborhood is bundled into a largely affluent, white district that dominates all elections with its pet issues (like, say, property tax rates and private education rebates, to go with some bland bougie concerns). I know it upsets you to think that race may serve as a reasonably reliable proxy for these types of political concerns in local and national issues, but as we haven't figured our shit out with race, it does no one but the usually white majority any favors to pretend that a "community of interest" can't be influenced by clustering ethnic demographics.
Race should not be a factor if race is used to discriminate and when it is heavily relied on as the predominant reasoning to diminish fair representation. Race can be considered but it cannot unjustifiably be relied on too heavily. The Court ruled on this in May in Cooper v Harris when it struck down North Carolina's map because of the "relied on too heavily" standard which, while irritatingly imprecise, still indicates that there are gradations of consideration of race that are permissible. Your absolutist stance against any consideration of race as a factor is not supported.
He spent the recess doing photo ops for conservatives and touting his right-wing creds. Probably a lot.
I find myself at a loss to form any coherent response to the things Gorsuch does and says individually because my brain is still going "but but but what the fuck" at the sheer shadiness of Congressional republicans getting this Justice into his stolen seat in the first place
I know I should be inured to these things and focused on details moving forward but I'm mystified
How is there a conservative in this country who isn't apoplectic that this was pulled off in their name?
I just ... is it naive that I have an emotional response to this level of decorum and tradition being breached? I guess so.
Why would they be mad about it? This is what they wanted. This is what they think. This is their desire. And they came out to the polls in 2016 to make it happen.
They don't give a shit about anything but seizing and holding power. (see - Russia too) Stealing a SCOTUS seat is not a problem for them, it's a victory.
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
[cite needed].
Do you have a problem with Lockheed donating to the fellows on the House Arms Services Committee? They are electing the people they are negotiating with there too.
Less of a problem but yeah. Regulatory capture is a problem and companies using profits from govt contracts to lobby is too.
You mean companies using "$speech" they earned from government contracts to lobby.
I'd like to see someone justify saying unions can't spend $speech to lobby the government for their interests but the defense industry can.
Posts
It's going to be sad to see Unions dismantled after June.
Wait what?!
Janus v AFSCME
It was deadlocked 4-4 before Gorsuch was appointed and got sent back down to a lower court to buy time.
It basically could mean the end of mandatory union dues in the public sector. Instant free rider problem as people quit the union, stop paying dues, but still get to keep all the benefits of being in the union.
It looks like it'll only dismantle Public Unions, unless I'm missing something?
Public sector unions are some of the last ones standing with any real oomph. That teachers union the republicans are always whining about? They are doing it because it is one of the few organisations which still powerfully supports democrats and isn't being eroded nationwide. The decision in this case will inevitably break up public sector unions in blue states which doubt want them broken up as part of the mass republican assault on our institutions.
Oh for sure it's terrible; it's just not the death of all unions right now, just one more step on the inevitable march towards that.
If Justice Antonin Scalia was still alive he would shed a tear over how well his conservative acolytes are holding up his reputation of being a legal hack.
Which isn't particularly surprising, since computers really are a game changer for that. The amount of information that can be brought to bear and effectively utilized to draw lines around the right house is inconceivable in the 70's.
Seemed pretty clear to me:
"We're in power. Those people aren't. And it's never going to change as long as we have anything to say about it."
Scalia's dickishness came more in his opinions, but he was by all accounts a cordial person to work with.
Not for sure terrible. No group should be able to close the loop of public sector job-->mandatory dues-->political action in support of -->better paid public sector
Most dues can't be used for PACs Spool. Also getting their members better pay and benefits is part of the point of a Union.
Agree on the second point and of course public unions should be able to negotiate for better pay and benefits.
Money is fungible though, and without one hell of an accountable firewall they should not be able to lobby in favor of electing the people they are negotiating with.
Under Abood the mandatory payments cannot legally be used for political action, only dues, so your concern is already outlawed.
And no group should be able to free ride on the negotiations of a Union lawyer without paying them for their billables.
AFSCME 31 is Chicago
I just want to point out that when I was a private attorney I had to do just that when I had multiple client funds in a single IOLTA account. It was never difficult to make sure Client A's money was tracked and never spent on Client B's legal tasks.
[cite needed].
Do you have a problem with Lockheed donating to the fellows on the House Arms Services Committee? They are electing the people they are negotiating with there too.
It's certainly doable. I'm more skeptical about things like paid leave for campaigning or "volunteering" that is obviously not volunteer.
In many cases the advocacy arm is an entirely separate organization.
Less of a problem but yeah. Regulatory capture is a problem and companies using profits from govt contracts to lobby is too.
You mean companies using "$speech" they earned from government contracts to lobby.
I mean, I am 100% against gerrymandering, but it's not that hard to argue for it. It allows under-represented, disperse populations a chance for representation. Have several close cities with a small Latino population? If you do nothing their vote gets spread out and they have no representation, but with a little gerrymandering you can bring together those like minded communities into a single district and suddenly they can get a representative that supports their interests.
The problem is when gerrymandering is overused, and suddenly the majority population has a minority representation. Hence the purposed fix of implementing a deviation from general vote check. I.e. the party affiliation of elected representatives has to be within a certain percentage of the general vote. Otherwise you done fucked up in drawing your maps.
I hate this argument because it codifies racism and assumes "Latinos" are a monolith. The worst part about gerrymandering, after the pro-incumbent bias, is the cynical divisiveness that spirals into deeper divisions and more partisanship.
People forced together will elect reps that are forced to compromise.
Any consideration of race as a factor is not "codifying racism" and "Latinos" do not have to be assumed to vote in tandem for their votes to be less effective in supporting a representative candidate if cracked across multiple districts or, conversely, more effective if voters in an ethnic community are packed into a single district
NNID: Hakkekage
I think, in modern memory, Alito has always been the most willfully obtuse justice
Although Gorsuch has been gunning hard to become the new champion
This still doesn't play, because having 10 reps with constituencies made up of 15-20% latino populations, who won their distrcits by anything less than that, would require ALL of them to have to listen to latino issues, or else be in danger of voted out.
If you gerrymander the state to only have 1-2 heavy minority districts per state, you may get a representative who is acutely aware of their issues, but even if they all get together and vote like a bloc, there wouldn't be enough to not get drowned out by all the other reps, who only need to ever worry about pleasing white people.
Just the idea that Latinos have a "their votes" as a separate category is bad. Latino Americans can just join all the other American citizens and elect a representative, we don't need to care about whether they have some greater or lesser power as a group within their legislative districts.
Race shouldn't be a factor in districting any more than past political affiliation or income or whatever else. Agnostic districts by population wherever humanly possible.
I disagree with the first part, namely because you don't need to look very far to see instances of specific groups being targetted by other areas of government, and recognize why having a representative that is more focused on representing that group might be important.
I just happen to think that minorities are actually better represented when a larger number of districts have to fight for their votes; if this wasn't the case, we'd have never seen them gerrymandered in the first place.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Tough nut to crack. You don't want to dilute a minority voice but you also don't want to manipulate districts for political gain.
I find myself at a loss to form any coherent response to the things Gorsuch does and says individually because my brain is still going "but but but what the fuck" at the sheer shadiness of Congressional republicans getting this Justice into his stolen seat in the first place
I know I should be inured to these things and focused on details moving forward but I'm mystified
How is there a conservative in this country who isn't apoplectic that this was pulled off in their name?
I just ... is it naive that I have an emotional response to this level of decorum and tradition being breached? I guess so.
Mitch McConnell hopefully is remembered in history as the person leading the party that broke our govt. Because that's what he did in my mind. It's not weird to continue to be upset about that.
It is not a separate, split off category but a subcategory of voters that would otherwise lack critical mass to affect standard community political processes for issues relevant to them but not to the majority in the district. For example, minority populations often have greater poverty and unemployment rates in neighborhoods defined by ethnic clustering, but poverty and unemployment is not an issue at large in a district where that neighborhood is bundled into a largely affluent, white district that dominates all elections with its pet issues (like, say, property tax rates and private education rebates, to go with some bland bougie concerns). I know it upsets you to think that race may serve as a reasonably reliable proxy for these types of political concerns in local and national issues, but as we haven't figured our shit out with race, it does no one but the usually white majority any favors to pretend that a "community of interest" can't be influenced by clustering ethnic demographics.
Race should not be a factor if race is used to discriminate and when it is heavily relied on as the predominant reasoning to diminish fair representation. Race can be considered but it cannot unjustifiably be relied on too heavily. The Court ruled on this in May in Cooper v Harris when it struck down North Carolina's map because of the "relied on too heavily" standard which, while irritatingly imprecise, still indicates that there are gradations of consideration of race that are permissible. Your absolutist stance against any consideration of race as a factor is not supported.
NNID: Hakkekage
Why would they be mad about it? This is what they wanted. This is what they think. This is their desire. And they came out to the polls in 2016 to make it happen.
They don't give a shit about anything but seizing and holding power. (see - Russia too) Stealing a SCOTUS seat is not a problem for them, it's a victory.
I'd like to see someone justify saying unions can't spend $speech to lobby the government for their interests but the defense industry can.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy