Pennsylvania Republicans move to impeach state Supreme Court for the crime of fair redistricting

I know what it means, let me help you with that.

"re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
noun
  1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
    • archaic
      a group with a certain equality between its members."

And how does that relate to your last post?
 
I think you have to look up the definition of a Republic

382743.jpg
 
And where in there does it say anything about people who live in the country having more valuable votes than those who live in densely populated areas?

The elected representatives part and the way the country was set up to be.

You know the whole point of the Senate .
 
lolstupid.png
Not really a strong rebuttal, nice try though. Next time you try to make any point I'll be sure to remember it.
XEPj1MM
<36>

You should redistrict those likes bro, you probably won.
 
The elected representatives part and the way the country was set up to be.

You know the whole point of the Senate .

I agree that @Falsedawn should only count as 3/5 of a vote that he doesn't get and that US Senators should be appointed by the state legislature......
 
The court has certainly the authority to force people to comply with the law.

Hmmm, comply with verses drawing electoral district which the state constitution says that the state legislature will do - interesting melding of duties..
 
I agree that @Falsedawn should only count as 3/5 of a vote that he doesn't get and that US Senators should be appointed by the state legislature......

Well the 3/5 thing was a northern thing. I'm ok with going back to some old ways.

The point being the urban areas should not get to fuck over the rural areas. Which is what the small states fought for when this country waa founded.
 
Why is this 'fair redistricting" rather than gerrymandering the other way? Because in one election it fared a slightly better result (which Trump still got more votes in)?

Is it only 'fair redistricting' when the party who lost last gets to do it?

No, bud. There are statutory and common law indicators and guidelines for congressional districting, meant to aggregate and divide political interests.

When the districting is instead meant to silence some interests and disproportionately amplify others, it becomes undemocratic.
 
Well the 3/5 thing was a northern thing. I'm ok with going back to some old ways.

The point being the urban areas should not get to fuck over the rural areas. Which is what the small states fought for when this country waa founded.

Not really.

When the US was founded it was mostly agrarian so the populations weren't as dense and the less densely populated areas made up a much larger part of the country's economy.

These things have changed.

And now the rural areas are fucking over the rest of the country.
 
Wolf is the Governor.

The left the court no choose. And the Justices didn't draw the map.

This article goes over the process




They're talking about Wisky... According to this article by NPR the court drew the new map:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has enacted a new congressional district map that may be much more favorable to Democrats, replacing the one it overturned and deemed an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander last month.

Justices described their map in their 48-page decision as "superior" to other proposals filed for their consideration.

Top statehouse Republicans have pledged to challenge the judicially enacted map, which they say amounts to overreach by the Democratic-majority court.


www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586668315/court-decides-pennsylvania-voting-map
 
And are you actually blaming this on the North?

Lol

Who's idea was it, let's see.

"Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 (almost half!) owned slaves. The delegates from Southern (slave) states wanted to counts slaves as part of their population. This would give the Southern states additional representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Delegates from the Northern (Free) states strongly opposed this, arguing that if slaves had no rights to vote (or any other rights of citizenship) then the South should not be given additional representatives."

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/slavery2.html
 
They're talking about Wisky... According to this article by NPR the court drew the new map:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has enacted a new congressional district map that may be much more favorable to Democrats, replacing the one it overturned and deemed an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander last month.

Justices described their map in their 48-page decision as "superior" to other proposals filed for their consideration.

Top statehouse Republicans have pledged to challenge the judicially enacted map, which they say amounts to overreach by the Democratic-majority court.


www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586668315/court-decides-pennsylvania-voting-map

They brought in somebody from Stanford to draw the map.
 
Who's idea was it, let's see.

"Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 (almost half!) owned slaves. The delegates from Southern (slave) states wanted to counts slaves as part of their population. This would give the Southern states additional representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. Delegates from the Northern (Free) states strongly opposed this, arguing that if slaves had no rights to vote (or any other rights of citizenship) then the South should not be given additional representatives."

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/slavery2.html

The mental gymnastics of this logic....

Black people didn't get to vote... but we're counted as 3/5 of a person for Congressional purposes to bump up Southern representation.

And we're getting way off topic here.

This started because you asserted that Republics were a meant to stop densely populated areas from having equal representation to rural areas in state and Federal government and that was Americas' foundation.

Nothing about that is correct.
 
The mental gymnastics of this logic....

Black people didn't get to vote... but we're counted as 3/5 of a person for Congressional purposes to bump up Southern representation.

And we're getting way off topic here.

This started because you asserted that Republics were a meant to stop densely populated areas from having equal representation to rural areas in state and Federal government and that was Americas' foundation.

Nothing about that is correct.

The South wanted each slave counted as a person for voting representation the north did not want to count them as people at all. The compermise was the 3/5 rule.

I gave you the proof.
 
The South wanted each slave counted as a person for voting representation the north did not want to count them as people at all. The compermise was the 3/5 rule.

I gave you the proof.
You guys are getting off topic
 
Back
Top