Redistricting | VA supremes toss redistricting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callatoroy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 586
  • Views: 29K
  • Politics 
ZZLPHeels said:
If people wanted to move to where there was less crime, then there wouldn’t be any red states left.
Click to expand...
Is that due to the stats outside of metropolitan areas controlled by Conservatives or are those stats influenced by the crime committed within the metropolitan areas in red states controlled by Democrats?
 
PandemicBlue said:
Is that due to the stats outside of metropolitan areas controlled by Conservatives or are those stats influenced by the crime committed within the metropolitan areas in red states controlled by Democrats?
Click to expand...
You’re a big “do your own research guy” so…do your own research. Hint: just about every single red state is a complete shithole that would be a third world wasteland without blue states bailing them out and subsidizing their economies. These states as a whole have the highest murder rates, the lowest economic output, the highest poverty rates, the lowest rates of literacy and educational attainment, and are failing in nearly every objectively measurable way, and….another hint…it’s not because whatever few blue cities they have are dragging down otherwise prosperous rural areas.
 
PandemicBlue said:
Is that due to the stats outside of metropolitan areas controlled by Conservatives or are those stats influenced by the crime committed within the metropolitan areas in red states controlled by Democrats?
Click to expand...
Well, your post was about states, so metropolitan areas don’t matter for this discussion.
 
As I’ve said, I do think a silver lining is going to be that this will likely compel even the most reticent Democrats, or independents like me, to support drastic changes to the courts once Democrats regain levers of federal power. I’ve resisted that kind of drastic measure for years and years. But this whole deal with Louisiana/Tennessee/Florida versus Virginia just shows that many Republican judges are truly anti-small d democratic forces, and must be dealt with by impeachment or court packing.

Another silver lining is that anger is arguably the greatest and most effective voter motivator and should mobilize massive Democratic turnout in November and moving forward.
 
CFordUNC said:
As I’ve said, I do think a silver lining is going to be that this will likely compel even the most reticent Democrats, or independents like me, to support drastic changes to the courts once Democrats regain levers of federal power. I’ve resisted that kind of drastic measure for years and years. But this whole deal with Louisiana/Tennessee/Florida versus Virginia just shows that many Republican judges are truly anti-small d democratic forces, and must be dealt with by impeachment or court packing.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the club! I don't think this Virginia thing is really relevant to the question of the federal courts. But the Supreme Court has to be fixed. It is an imperative. Ironically it should be the thing that moderates or even center-right types want the most.

Put it this way. Think of all the various facets of our government's dysfunction right now, and the perception that Congress doesn't do anything. All of them are at least substantially the fault of the Supreme Court. Racism in government and the GOP was powered up by Shelby County, given that southern legislators actually didn't need to keep the quiet part quiet any more. Gerrymandering is on the Supreme Court. The disorganized hell at all our agencies, and the closing of agencies (real or effectively) is on the Supreme Court. Money in politics? On the Supreme Court. Almost the first thing Alito did upon being sworn in was declare war on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

So we cannot fix the country until we get rid of the problem, and that is the conservative fuckfaces on the Supreme Court who can't even seem to think logically any more. It's like they aren't trying, and probably they aren't. None of their shit even makes sense. This latest "we're not invalidating the Vorting Rigthts Act; we are merely construing it properly and it turns out that it actually destroys itself in its text even though the words obviously point to the opposite conclusion trust us bro" is particularly incoherent.

And thus does court reform -- serious court reform, not mere window dressing -- become urgent. Court expansion is merely step one, so we can still get other stuff done while we fix the Supremes.
 
superrific said:
Welcome to the club! I don't think this Virginia thing is really relevant to the question of the federal courts. But the Supreme Court has to be fixed. It is an imperative. Ironically it should be the thing that moderates or even center-right types want the most.

Put it this way. Think of all the various facets of our government's dysfunction right now, and the perception that Congress doesn't do anything. All of them are at least substantially the fault of the Supreme Court. Racism in government and the GOP was powered up by Shelby County, given that southern legislators actually didn't need to keep the quiet part quiet any more. Gerrymandering is on the Supreme Court. The disorganized hell at all our agencies, and the closing of agencies (real or effectively) is on the Supreme Court. Money in politics? On the Supreme Court. Almost the first thing Alito did upon being sworn in was declare war on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

So we cannot fix the country until we get rid of the problem, and that is the conservative fuckfaces on the Supreme Court who can't even seem to think logically any more. It's like they aren't trying, and probably they aren't. None of their shit even makes sense. This latest "we're not invalidating the Vorting Rigthts Act; we are merely construing it properly and it turns out that it actually destroys itself in its text even though the words obviously point to the opposite conclusion trust us bro" is particularly incoherent.

And thus does court reform -- serious court reform, not mere window dressing -- become urgent. Court expansion is merely step one, so we can still get other stuff done while we fix the Supremes.
Click to expand...
I think the Virginia situation highlights for people that the judiciary at all levels of government are nothing more than political actors in robes and not some sort of high-brow scholars/philosopher kings above the fray. With that the judiciary needs to be severely curtailed and if not engaging in major court packing or statutorily limiting courts’ jurisdiction, perhaps going even further and legislatively or constitutionally going as far as overruling Marbury and abolishing the common law system entirely and switching to a civil code.
 
Last edited:
May as well shift to state-wide election of all U.S. House seats and have districts drawn solely for compactness and shared interests of the districts, even though everyone votes on every seat. That seems to be where this is headed anyway.

Or heck just one House member per state who gets as many votes in the House as House seats allocated to that state. So if you are the Rep from a state with one house district you get one vote but if you are from a state with 35 districts you get 35 votes. Or 2 reps per state but votes are allocated per 250,000 people in your state and the junior House member gets less if there is an odd number to allocate (so in a state with 1.25 million people, the senior rep gets 3 votes and the junior rep gets 2 votes). Then only allow one six year term or two four year terms per rep to guarantee turnover.
 
Last edited:
Disappointing but not surprising...

It is so hard to be a Democrat:(

www.rawstory.com

Appalled NY Times writer hits Dems for rolling over after 'absurd' Virginia court decision

A Virginia Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a voter-approved redistricting referendum has set a dangerous new precedent — and the Democrats whose voters were disenfranchised are barely putting up a fight, according to a scathing new analysis.Last month, Virginia voters approved a new...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
dukeman92 said:
They’re just tossing out votes. We’re fucked.
Click to expand...
"Before we allow you to vote, we will need to see a copy of the voter rolls showing that at least two of your direct line male ancestors were eligible to vote in the 1864 election."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top