• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat It's Official! Gerrymandering Is Legal!

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
105960406-1560264849658gettyimages-1147418125.jpeg

POINTS
The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering.

The vote was 5-4 decision, falling along partisan lines.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.

He says those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not block gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that fell along partisan lines.

“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court. Roberts wrote that those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”

“Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote.

The court’s decision prompted a fierce dissent from its liberal wing. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one,” Kagan wrote. “The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”

Gerrymandering has largely benefited Republicans in recent years because of the 2010 midterm wave that handed the party control of numerous statehouses across the country. Districts are drawn nationwide every 10 years. The next redistricting is scheduled to take place after the 2020 census.

The justices considered two cases, out of North Carolina and Maryland, in which voters alleged that their congressional districts were unfairly drawn to benefit one political party. The top court had never declared a district map as too partisan. During arguments in March, the conservatives seemed reluctant to weigh in on the matter.

“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” Kagan wrote.

The two cases came from North Carolina and Maryland. In North Carolina, Democratic voters alleged that a map drawn by the GOP legislature in 2016 unfairly benefited Republicans.

In Maryland, it was Republicans who challenged the map, saying that one congressional district drawn in 2011 was unfairly tilted in favor of the Democrats.

In both cases, those behind the maps admitted that they were drawn to benefit their party.

The cases are known as Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, and Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
fucking dems always cry unfair, but when they do it claim it's fair. heads you lose tails they win.:rolleyes:

my district is cut up and morphed by liberals, progressives and dems over decades that it's not the same district anymore since 1969.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
fucking dems always cry unfair, but when they do it claim it's fair. heads you lose tails they win.:rolleyes:

my district is cut up and morphed by liberals, progressives and dems over decades that it's not the same district anymore since 1969.

Then you need to uproot yourself to live in Trump country ...Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas...to name a few. New York and California are not friendly to you.

If only Democrats could be as dirty as the Republicans, SCOTUS would have been controlled by the liberals and many states legislatures under the Dems. Time for the Democracts to be as ruthless as the Republicans. Mitch McConnel should be hanged.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Then you need to uproot yourself to live in Trump country ...Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas...to name a few. New York and California are not friendly to you.

If only Democrats could be as dirty as the Republicans, SCOTUS would have been controlled by the liberals and many states legislatures under the Dems. Time for the Democracts to be as ruthless as the Republicans. Mitch McConnel should be hanged.
gerrymandering goes both ways, for both parties except those on the fringe.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
gerrymandering goes both ways, for both parties except those on the fringe.

Republicans started it and has made it an art. After Obama got elected, Mtich and his billionaires buddies planned the takeover of state legislatures so that the Republicans can draw up the electoral districts to ensure that the Republicans will always have the edge. Without the gerrymandering, Democrats would have won more seats in this mid-term.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cdd5fe74204_story.html?utm_term=.893c44221f7b

The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans



By Julian E. Zelizer
June 17, 2016

Julian E. Zelizer is a political historian at Princeton University and a Fellow at New America. His most recent book is “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.”

The House of Representatives has been a bulwark for conservatism in the age of Obama. Even though Democrats hoped that the 2008 election marked a new era in progressive politics, the predictions were wrong. Just as Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans in Congress teamed up against Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, since the 2010 midterm elections rightward House Republicans, secure in their seats, have blocked President Obama on almost all of his legislative agenda. The GOP has turned congressional obstructionism into an art form.


During Obama’s presidency, Republicans retook control of the House in 2010 and increased the size of their majority from 242 to 247. Even if Republicans suffer a landslide defeat in 2016 with Donald Trump at the top of their ticket, most experts predict that they will retain control of the House. Whatever national polls say about Obama or the GOP, Republican lawmakers are relatively safe in their seats. And as long as Republicans have a lock on the House, party polarization will continue in the years to come, since House Republicans will have no reason to compromise with a Democratic president or even more moderate voices within their own party.


How do conservative Republicans maintain so much power in the House, even though Americans reelected a liberal president and polls show that the GOP suffers from high disapproval ratings?

Salon editor David Daley’s punchy, though overstated, new book lays the blame for Republican power in the House on partisan gerrymandering, the byzantine process through which state legislatures draw district lines to favor incumbents from one party. Challenging the claim that increased partisan polarization is a result of voters naturally sorting themselves into red and blue states, Daley argues that a group of operatives in the Republican Party did the sorting for them. The GOP poured money into an unprecedented effort to control governorships and state legislative bodies in 2010 and to then redraw congressional districts so that the party could turn the House into a firewall against the Democrats.

While the term “gerrymander” has been around since the early years of the republic, computer technology and big money have allowed governors and legislatures to perfect the process in ways that have never before been imagined, according to Daley. The same technology that allows Amazon to figure out who buys what in any home on a given block now allows party officials to do the same with elections.


Although his argument might not be as sexy as talking about how money corrupts politics or how the 24-hour news media leaves us all screaming, the success of Republican legislatures and governors at redrawing congressional districts is the reason, he says, House Republican incumbents have increased their power and don’t have to worry about any “wave” election that would shift control to the other party. The result is that House Republicans have become more dug into their opposition to every presidential initiative, playing to their very red districts, and there is nothing but gridlock on Capitol Hill. Bipartisan deals are impossible, and the chances for good governance have disappeared. Indeed, Republicans have been so successful that they have created an unanticipated problem: GOP incumbents now have to worry about primary challenges from tea party Republicans who want to move even further to the right.

Daley takes us through the story of how this all happened. Once Obama was in the White House, a group of wily Republicans doubled down on state and local politics. Chris Jankowski, a tactician for the Republican State Leadership Committee, and his allies came up with an audacious plan to target campaign money toward gaining control of state governments, where reapportionment would take place. The operation, called REDMAP (Redistricting Majority Project), was never a secret. Karl Rove outlined what they planned to do in the Wall Street Journal.


In a local race in Pennsylvania in 2010, Democrat David Levdansky, a 13-term state representative, found himself under assault. He faced a barrage of advertising, financed by national Republican organizations, claiming in misleading television spots and mailers that he had voted to spend $600 million on a library in honor of Arlen Specter, the controversial U.S. senator who had left the Republicans to join the Democrats. This didn’t sit well with constituents in a recession. He paid the price: Republican Rick Saccone narrowly defeated him. “The f---ing Arlen Specter library,” Levdansky recalled after he lost. Once national Republicans flipped his seat, they gained control of the state’s lower chamber.

The first stage of the plan worked beautifully. Republicans won majorities in 10 out of the 15 states that would be redrawing their districts.

With control of many state governments in place, Republicans launched the second phase. Using sophisticated software such as Maptitude, GOP operatives crafted favorable districts filled with conservative white voters, based on the kind of data available to corporations. The book is brimming with fascinating portraits of wunderkinds who integrated micro-targeting, computer mapmaking and gerrymandering. Democrats were clustered into a handful of districts while the rest were packed with conservative voters.

Daley shows how, even when reforms promised to make the redistricting process more public, behind the scenes, crafty operatives did what they wanted.

Titled “Ratf**ked,” a term that came out of the Richard Nixon administration to refer to “a dirty deed done dirt cheap,” Daley’s book provides a blow-by-blow account of how this happened. He draws on investigative reports, interviews and court documents to give readers an eye-opening tour of a process that many Americans never see. Not unlike the legislative process, which is often compared to the ugliness of making sausage, redistricting is an element of democracy that many readers won’t find comforting.

Much of Daley’s book will not come as a surprise. Journalists and scholars have written about this state-based mobilization by the Republican Party since it started.

Nor is Daley the first liberal commentator to point to the political process as the reason conservatism succeeded in a given period. During the 1950s and 1960s, a generation of liberals argued that the seniority-based congressional committee system propped up a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans that prevented liberal Democratic presidents from moving their legislation through Congress. Back then, the problem was gerrymandered districts that privileged rural voters over urban voters, a situation that ended with the Supreme Court’s one-man-one-vote decisions between 1962 and 1964. Liberal Sen. Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania blasted his colleagues as the “Sapless Branch” of government.
 
Last edited:
Top