- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Ask him again. I'd like to have him on record claiming to be a "lawyer". There aren't many lawyers here, man. @BKMMAFAN is one of the few.
Law [Partisan Gerrymandering News] Florida appeals court reverses ruling on DeSantis’s congressional maps
- Thread starter Arkain2K
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Part of the majority opinion:
The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and considered what to do about them. They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “it will . . . not be denied that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter, and ultimately in the former.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 362 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
At no point was there a suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play. Nor was there any indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts doing such a thing.
The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and considered what to do about them. They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “it will . . . not be denied that a discretionary power over elections ought to exist somewhere. It will, I presume, be as readily conceded that there were only three ways in which this power could have been reasonably modified and disposed: that it must either have been lodged wholly in the national legislature, or wholly in the State legislatures, or primarily in the latter, and ultimately in the former.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 362 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
At no point was there a suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play. Nor was there any indication that the Framers had ever heard of courts doing such a thing.
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
God, you're painfully stupid. This has been expressly disproved.
Biggest four cases during Roberts career (with the most headlines):
Citizens United (sided with conservatives)
Obergefell (sided with conservatives)
Heller (sided with conservatives)
Iqbal (sided with conservatives)
On the next tier, he sided with conservatives in all but one case:Obergefell (sided with conservatives)
Heller (sided with conservatives)
Iqbal (sided with conservatives)
Janus v. AFSCME (sided with conservatives)
Rapanos v. US (sided with conservatives)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (sided with conservatives)
Morse v. Frederick (sided with conservatives)
Sebellius (sided with liberals)
So, again, no, he cannot be counted on to do anything but vote like one of the most partisan conservative jurists in modern history, which is why he is more conservative (+8) than any of the liberal justices are liberal (-5 to -7)Rapanos v. US (sided with conservatives)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (sided with conservatives)
Morse v. Frederick (sided with conservatives)
Sebellius (sided with liberals)
I am a lawyer. Better yet, I have a law degree from a top 20 school.
If you'd like to arrange an account bet, since you are so fond of those, I wouldn't mind relieving the forum of your bet welshing.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,433
- Reaction score
- 20,855
Looks like I was pretty close to what they decided. Kudos to me.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,494
- Reaction score
- 0
Where was the "feelings" in mine? You were wrong, I corrected you. You gave me nonsense not based in reality, but what you "felt" was true.
Your information is not based in reality. There is no data or facts behind it, mine does.
Yes, one person, one vote is a term used by those that do not actually know what kind of Democracy this nation has been since day one. Not the Greek Democracy, the Roman.
Greek Democracy led to its most brilliant mind being voted on by a butthurt populace to kill himself for saying things they didnt want to hear which led to a very early collapse of a young Democracy.
Roman Democracy led to a population being represented by a Senate for over 500 years.
No, you are arguing for a city to be the only thing represented in an entire STATE...MOB RULE.
MOB. RULE...a thing the world learned NOT to do.
NAME ONE. One. Name one country in the world today with an Ochlocracy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy
Screw, I will do it for you because you have yet to actually present any actual facts yet and may not have the ability.
The Philippines, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia...thats it. Great places right? Yeah. Go away.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 30,814
- Reaction score
- 38,155
Because I feel the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies here.
When there has been a deliberate method to deprive people of the politician the majority would have actually preferred, those people are not being given equal protection under the law as the minority who voted for the majority of the politicians making the laws to represent them
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,423
- Reaction score
- 5,684
Bump from two years ago for those who are new to the discussion.
Two years was plenty enough time to prepare for the only working solution. Every single State in the union should have a proposition to create an Independent Redistricting Comission on the next ballot.
Anything else is just hot air and useless virtue signaling.
What Ohio can learn from California to eliminate gerrymandering
September 06, 2017
CLEVELAND, Ohio - Ohio might look to California for a solution to its gerrymandering problem.
The Golden State has succeeded in removing politicians from the drawing of congressional district boundaries, something Ohio lawmakers have refused to do.
So, Californians end up with districts designed to reflect the common interests of their communities, unlike many Ohioans whose districts only reflect the re-election interests of politicians and their parties.
Which process sounds better to you?
The Ohio way
In Ohio, new congressional maps are drawn after each census, with the approval of the Ohio House, Ohio Senate and the governor.
The Republicans controlled the process the last two times, creating the maps used for the 2002-10 and 2012-20 elections. Before then, party power was split; but the boundaries always were drawn by politicians.
The California way
A 14-member independent commission – no elected officials allowed - draws the congressional district lines in California.
The method was established by a voter referendum in 2010, with 61 percent of California’s voters approving what was dubbed the “Voters First Act for Congress.”
"The representatives don't choose their voters anymore," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, an expert on politics and elections, and a senior fellow at the USC Price School of Public Policy.
Jeffe's view is shared by Helen Hutchinson, president of the League of Women Voters of California.
Before reform, the elected leaders who worked redistricting maps were "just trying to protect people who were incumbents," she said. "While it was the Democats who were doing the drawing, they were probably just as good at protecting the Republican incumbents as they were Democrats."
If not elected, how is the commission chosen?
The All About Redistricting website, an encyclopedia of sorts on the topic by Loyola of California law professor Justin Levitt, outlines the selection process this way:
Who cannot serve on the commission?
- A panel of three state auditors creates a pool of 60 potential commission members - 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 people who are neither Democrat nor Republican.
- The four legislative leaders – two Democrats and two Republicans – may then each cut two people from the pool.
- From the remaining 52 to 60 candidates, three commission members are randomly chosen from the group of Democrats, three are randomly chosen from the group of Republicans and two from the group of independents.
- The first eight members chosen for the commission then add six others from the field – two Republicans, two Democrats and two from neither party - to reflect the diversity of the state.
California’s commission takes the no-politician business seriously. It bars current politicians, former politicians and pretty much anyone who even thinks about becoming a politician.
Here are some of the key restrictions:
One more way to limit one party's control.
- No elected officials.
- No one who has changed party affiliation in the last five years.
- No one who within 10 years has been a candidate for a federal or state office, or a member of a party's central committee.
- No one with an immediate family member who in the last 10 years has been a candidate for federal or state office, or a member of a party's central committee.
- No officer, employee or paid consultant to a federal or state party candidate.
Approval of California’s congressional maps requires at least three Democrat votes, three Republican votes and three votes from people who are not affiliated with either party.
The map drawn in 2011 was approved by the commission in a 12-2 vote.
In the event of a stalemate, the California Supreme Court selects a group to draw the map.
Do the voters have any say?
California voters do have a say if they don’t like the map the commission creates. The map can be challenged through a referendum.
This was attempted in 2012, but the group behind the effort failed to get enough signatures to force a vote on the congressional maps.
Enough signatures were collected on a similar effort to question the maps for state Senate districts. The campaign to overturn the state Senate maps received financial backing from the state Republican Party.
At the ballot, however, voters overwhelming decided to keep the commission’s map-drawing work in place – by a vote of 72 percent to 28 percent.
What criteria must the commission use?
California’s districts are supposed to be compact and communities with shared interests should be kept together. This extends beyond consideration of just city or county lines. A community could mean an industrial area, a farm area, an area of similar living standards, or an area with similar transportation patterns.
Ohio’s current congressional map would never pass this California requirement:
"a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process."
Ohio uses no geographic criteria. This is why communities and counties have been split in crazy ways to create districts that stretch more than 100 miles in some cases - merely to maximum the votes for one party or the other.
In California, creating districts that represented community interests was more important than creating competitive races, said the League of Women Voters' Hutchinson.
"People talk a lot about competitive seats," Hutchinson said. "We didn’t put that in as a criteria. But you now have communities who have a chance to elect people who represent them. You tend to live near people who are like you."
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/09/what_ohio_could_learn_from_cal.html
Two years was plenty enough time to prepare for the only working solution. Every single State in the union should have a proposition to create an Independent Redistricting Comission on the next ballot.
Anything else is just hot air and useless virtue signaling.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 30,814
- Reaction score
- 38,155
Where does the data for these numbers come from? Having those values does seem to give you an objectively tangible argument, but the number assignments seem like they would have to have been come by subjectively and thus setting the whole thing up as skewed from the beginning if so?
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 30,814
- Reaction score
- 38,155
What about the states where the majority has their majority favored map and does not wish to relinquish that by bringing to vote an independent redistricting commish to take that away?
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 60,923
- Reaction score
- 30,774
Too damn bad.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
No.
People should not want this and i guarantee if benefits 'the other side' they would not.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
This thread needs a soundtrack
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,423
- Reaction score
- 5,684
We have already discussed how the voters in a deep-blue state like California and a deep-red state like Arizona was able to do just that earlier in this neatly indexed thread. Have you caught up with that yet?
Reality is most voters are against gerrymandering, regardless their political leanings. They simply need to realize the solution they're looking for is right in front of them all this time, with the blueprints provided by the citizens who took that brave stance and proved it works.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,494
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes.
Provide refutes. Facts dont care about your feelings.
Also, typical Democratic lie that only Republicans do this..Illinois has been a Democrat cesspit for years...
https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Illinois
http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-IL.php
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
No.
And I see people calling for an end to gerrymandering period with new rules not rules only on Republican gerrymandering so again you make no point.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 4,765
- Reaction score
- 3,670
I believe Alanb is a lawyer, I know he does a lot of gun rights stuff.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 60,923
- Reaction score
- 30,774
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,494
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes.
And I see people calling to keep it and not want to return to a 2000+ year old failed system that has been rejected by the over-whelming majority of the world since that time, and today.
You may want America to be like the shit 4 nations that actually to use it, I do not. Because I do not run on idiotic feelings being manipulated by a party currently over-run with extreme far to the left snowflakes and professional victims.
My points stand. You have nothing but feelings. Next time, try to form an opinion based on reality so it actually has some factual and historical support for you to actually post other than "No" and "you have no points"...you know, an opinion with actual substance.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
Your partisan drivel does not require substance to refute it. Dismissing it is fine. Even the supreme court makes minces no words about the problem and dangers. They just say they should be fixed at the State level. You say 'derp, i see nothing, I know nothing... leave it as is'.
You are alone in your stupidity with a handful of partisans who like it now as they think they benefit the most.
