Jump to content

U.S. Politics Inaguration Sensation: Be Prepared


Sivin

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Unless they get a conservative justice before the case gets before them, which is pretty likely now that the GOP has carte blanche to do whatever they want. 

The 5 justices believed to be opposed to Gerrymandering includes the 4 liberals and Kennedy, so Trump's next appointment wouldn't make a difference to that.  We'll see if Kennedy actually rules that way or not, but he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Unless they get a conservative justice before the case gets before them, which is pretty likely now that the GOP has carte blanche to do whatever they want. 

That would make it 5-4 in favor of deciding gerrymandering unconstitutional.   RBG, kagan, Sotomeyer, and breyer are liberal, and Kennedy was the deciding vote; he's on board contingent on whether a system could be articulated.    Honestly, I think Thomas is the only justice who'd definitely vote against, as aLito and Roberts could probably go either way, based on whether they accept the system presented (probably unlikely, but less decidedly  than Thomas)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

That would make it 5-4 in favor of deciding gerrymandering unconstitutional.   RBG, kagan, Sotomeyer, and breyer are liberal, and Kennedy was the deciding vote; he's on board contingent on whether a system could be articulated.    Honestly, I think Thomas is the only justice who'd definitely vote against, as aLito and Roberts could probably go either way, based on whether they accept the system presented (probably unlikely, but less decidedly  than Thomas)

butterbumps,

I would love to see Gerrymandering end.  However, with the legality of creating "minority-majority" districts, to promote the worthy goal of more minority representation in the House of Representatives, it is difficult for the court to be effective in ending gerrymandering.  

The natural result of carving out minority majority districts (when minorities tend to vote for the Democratic party) is that it creates rump districts were people are more likely to vote Republican.  This effect, obviously, can be amplified but I think that it should come as no surprise that the first "Republican Wave" in the House of Representatives (after decades of Democratic control) was in 1994 after the first "Minority-Majority" districts were created.

It's not that minority-majority districts are bad.  It is that their existence has a natural unintended consequences and their creation, in Republican controlled States, gives the opportunity for less wholesome gerrymandering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

That would make it 5-4 in favor of deciding gerrymandering unconstitutional.   RBG, kagan, Sotomeyer, and breyer are liberal, and Kennedy was the deciding vote; he's on board contingent on whether a system could be articulated.    Honestly, I think Thomas is the only justice who'd definitely vote against, as aLito and Roberts could probably go either way, based on whether they accept the system presented (probably unlikely, but less decidedly  than Thomas)

Did I miss something or am I misunderstanding? There are only 8 justices with a vacancy. Anyone Trump nominates (and who will inevitably be confirmed) will probably say it's constitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The 5 justices believed to be opposed to Gerrymandering includes the 4 liberals and Kennedy, so Trump's next appointment wouldn't make a difference to that.  We'll see if Kennedy actually rules that way or not, but he could.

Sorry, but at this point, I don't believe anything until I actually see it happen. Five justices are believed to be opposed to it, but that doesn't mean they'll vote that way. I have zero confidence in anything the incoming administration does or will do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all the pictures I'm seeing of DC right now, looks really quiet. It's only 3 hours from inauguration. Trump might have a record low crowd at this rate. In 2008, even people with tickets couldn't get in 3 hours before inauguration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a worst-case scenario, if the Supreme Court doesn't throw out gerrymandering, there remains two hopes for the Democrats - the Senate (which can't be gerrymandered, except insofar as state boundaries are), and Governorships. The point with the latter is win as many Governorships as you can going into 2020 - that, at least, gives a foot in the door, and in various cases would result in a neutral court-drawn map, rather than an overtly partisan monstrosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Did I miss something or am I misunderstanding? There are only 8 justices with a vacancy. Anyone Trump nominates (and who will inevitably be confirmed) will probably say it's constitutional. 

There are currently 4 liberal justices, 3 conservative, and Kennedy, the swing guy, who in this case looks like he'll vote with the liberals.     With the appointment of a conservative judge to replace Scalia, this gerrymandering case looks like it would be decided 5-4 in favor of gerrymandering being unconstitutional.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

From all the pictures I'm seeing of DC right now, looks really quiet. It's only 3 hours from inauguration. Trump might have a record low crowd at this rate. In 2008, even people with tickets couldn't get in 3 hours before inauguration.

That's actually why I don't understand people protesting the inauguration today.  Surely you know you're going to be counted towards the overall crowd in attendance, which just gives Trump political capital.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Did I miss something or am I misunderstanding? There are only 8 justices with a vacancy. Anyone Trump nominates (and who will inevitably be confirmed) will probably say it's constitutional. 

Yes, Kennedy is part of the conservative wing of the court.  He and Roberts tend to be the swing votes.  As such if Trump nominates and has "Bob Conservative" as the new justice there are still 5 potential votes in favor of ending Gerrymandering.  That said, what does that do to carving minority-majority districts in Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maithanet said:

That's actually why I don't understand people protesting the inauguration today.  Surely you know you're going to be counted towards the overall crowd in attendance, which just gives Trump political capital.  

Well, what I'm seeing is people blocking entrances and stuff. Not sure how many are actually on the mall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

In a worst-case scenario, if the Supreme Court doesn't throw out gerrymandering, there remains two hopes for the Democrats - the Senate (which can't be gerrymandered, except insofar as state boundaries are), and Governorships. The point with the latter is win as many Governorships as you can going into 2020 - that, at least, gives a foot in the door, and in various cases would result in a neutral court-drawn map, rather than an overtly partisan monstrosity.

Not to mention state legislative races, some of which have been gerrymandered ridiculously, others are quite open.  There's plenty of races in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for Democrats to focus on.  Yes, sometimes it is an uphill battle, but what can you do, other than get organized and vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know, I was just about to get on Amazon today to buy a pair of Ivanka Trump Storm Trooper Boots.

I don't want to be the only kid on the block without a pair.

Nice choice. You should see if you can get a custom steel toe.

Personally, I'm going with something red. That way I'll have to wash them less frequently.
 

15 hours ago, Fez said:

Tillerson is still probably the best bet to get a rejection, maybe Carson too. Flynn would be, if his position required confirmation.

None of the nominees were going to get defeated because they were too conservative. The only chance would be if they were too obviously incompetent, or the special case of Tillerson.

Republicans should defeat DeVos if they actually want conservative education reform; she's far too over her head to enact any meaningful changes.

Most Republicans have warmed up to Tillerson. He will get all 52 votes.

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I don't know about others, but I find it frustrating not to be able to address the problem of false equivalence in a courteous or adult way.
 

There's no point when interacting with an individual who isn't willing to have an honest conversation.

14 hours ago, Mexal said:

Jesus. Sean Spicer just spent 5 minutes on MSNBC extolling Rick Perry's qualifications because he comes from a state with strong oil and gas production. He only talked about Perry and how he'll work on oil, gas, solar, and said not a single thing about handling our nuclear capability. And the host didn't question him on it. Wow.

Morning Joe was especially bad this morning. The best/worst clip I saw was:

Willy: "The ghost author of The Art of the Deal said he doesn't think Trump's ever finished reading a book"

Mika (whom I loath): "That's because he gets it right away"

That idiot gave more cover for Trump than anyone in the media.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

butterbumps,

I would love to see Gerrymandering end.  However, with the legality of creating "minority-majority" districts, to promote the worthy goal of more minority representation in the House of Representatives, it is difficult for the court to be effective in ending gerrymandering.  

The natural result of carving out minority majority districts (when minorities tend to vote for the Democratic party) is that it creates rump districts were people are more likely to vote Republican.  This effect, obviously, can be amplified but I think that it should come as no surprise that the first "Republican Wave" in the House of Representatives (after decades of Democratic control) was in 1994 after the first "Minority-Majority" districts were created.

It's not that minority-majority districts are bad.  It is that their existence has a natural unintended consequences and their creation, in Republican controlled States, gives the opportunity for less wholesome gerrymandering.

I'm unclear what you're Saying about this.   We shouldn't want gerrymandering to be declared unconstitutional because it's difficult to end it practically since gerrymandering to increase minority representation is benevolent but also causes unintended wins for republicans?   Apologies for misunderstanding, I'm just not following.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Morning Joe was especially bad this morning. The best/worst clip I saw was:

Willy: "The ghost author of The Art of the Deal said he doesn't think Trump's ever finished reading a book"

Mika (whom I loath): "That's because he gets it right away"

That idiot gave more cover for Trump than anyone in the media.  

I saw that. Absolutely ridiculous. Thing that's weird about Mika is she was so against him for a whole year but kept praising him for winning and by praising him for winning, she ultimately kept giving him these mystical powers that allowed him to know the people, make the greatest strategic moves, outlast 17 established Republicans and so on. She kept calling him abhorrent and then praising him for winning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm unclear what you're Saying about this.   We shouldn't want gerrymandering to be declared unconstitutional because it's difficult to end it practically since gerrymandering to increase minority representation is benevolent but also causes unintended wins for republicans?   Apologies for misunderstanding, I'm just not following.  

I'm saying that with gerrymandering allowed for the creation of majority districts the natural effect of concentrating minority voters (who tend to vote Democratic at higher rates than whites) is to create rump districts that will tend to vote more Republican.  Can gerrymandering for political effect be eliminated while allowing gerrymandering for the creation of minority majority districts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm saying that with gerrymandering allowed for the creation of majority districts the natural effect of concentrating minority voters (who tend to vote Democratic at higher rates than whites) is to create rump districts that will tend to vote more Republican.  Can gerrymandering for political effect be eliminated while allowing gerrymandering for the creation of minority majority districts?

 

Forgive my ignorance but if gerrymandering were to be struck down, would packing districts to make minority elected officials more likely still be as necessary?   And is that truly the only effective strategy to produce that result (I am skeptical that it is).   It kind of says something that Gingrich and other conservative trolls are vociferous proponents of this variety of districting.   Why not eliminate gerrymandering entirely and promote minority leadership through other channels?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Forgive my ignorance but if gerrymandering were to be struck down, would packing districts to make minority elected officials more likely still be as necessary?   And is that truly the only effective strategy to produce that result (I am skeptical that it is).   It kind of says something that Gingrich and other conservative trolls are vociferous proponents of these districts.   Why not eliminate gerrymandering entirely and promote minority leadership through other channels?

butterbumps,

No this was not a conservative plot.  When I suggested completely ending gerrymandering "Sword of the Morning" who is a friend on Facebook took it poorly because it would mean ending minority-majority districts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I saw that. Absolutely ridiculous. Thing that's weird about Mika is she was so against him for a whole year but kept praising him for winning and by praising him for winning, she ultimately kept giving him these mystical powers that allowed him to know the people, make the greatest strategic moves, outlast 17 established Republicans and so on. She kept calling him abhorrent and then praising him for winning. 

Trump is a close friend of hers. During the primaries she intentionally gave him favorable coverage.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/leaked-audio-catches-mika-and-joe-chatting-with-trump-during-break-nothing-too-hard-mika/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm saying that with gerrymandering allowed for the creation of majority districts the natural effect of concentrating minority voters (who tend to vote Democratic at higher rates than whites) is to create rump districts that will tend to vote more Republican.  Can gerrymandering for political effect be eliminated while allowing gerrymandering for the creation of minority majority districts?

 

What it does primarily is waste the minorities' votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...