TH3 Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/04/the-conservative-go-for-broke-legal-strategy-suffers-a-blow/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Hopefully the trend of voter suppression is fading... Edited April 4, 2016 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/04/the-conservative-go-for-broke-legal-strategy-suffers-a-blow/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Hopefully the trend of voter suppression is fading... They were suing Texas, but nice attempt to implicate Texas with your misleading title Good job. The author of the article attempted to draw connections that simply do not exist and turn this 180 degrees such as: (although you might point out that we do have a legislative body that violates this principle; it’s called the United States Senate, where Wyoming gets one senator for every 300,000 residents and California gets one senator for every 20 million residents). So the basis of the Union is flawed? Nice premise. Read history again some time. And this one is a classic: About the legal audacity I mentioned before: As unlikely as this case may have been to succeed, it’s another reminder of how legally aggressive the right has been lately. Again and again, whether it’s about voting rights or the Affordable Care Act or some other issue, they’ve come up with some novel legal theory that at first gets dismissed as completely absurd, then begins to sound mainstream as conservatives see an opportunity to gain a victory and rally around it. As if this weren't what the commies democrats have been doing for what is now closing in on a century. Only they aren't just doing it with court cases. They do it with protests, legislation, TV shows, movies and a wide array of other crap. Turnabout in this case may not be fair play but whining about it is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 That article also completely mischaracterizes the role of the Senate, claiming that it represents 'voters'. It does not - the Senate represents each state - putting every state on equal footing. They lose credibility in making such statements, because it means that they either don't know what the hell they're talking about, or that they're deliberately being deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 That article also completely mischaracterizes the role of the Senate, claiming that it represents 'voters'. It does not - the Senate represents each state - putting every state on equal footing. They lose credibility in making such statements, because it means that they either don't know what the hell they're talking about, or that they're deliberately being deceptive. Deliberately being deceptive. Keep in mind: it's not an article, it's a blog post. A "reported opinion blog with a liberal slant. What you might call 'opinionated reporting'." Yes, that's a direct quote from the Post. So...yeah, deliberately deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 That article also completely mischaracterizes the role of the Senate, claiming that it represents 'voters'. It does not - the Senate represents each state - putting every state on equal footing. They lose credibility in making such statements, because it means that they either don't know what the hell they're talking about, or that they're deliberately being deceptive. A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 "It's easy to predict that the Court will reject this claim and let the states keep relying on the longstanding population-based method of redistricting." I wrote, last December, after reading the oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott: Prof. Ann Althouse Even though there's some principled sense to the eligible-voter-based method, there's also principled support for the existing method. It would need to be much more obvious that there's something wrong with the existing method before the Court would declare that what's been done for so long is not even permissible, especially when it would require states to undertake so much difficult and expensive new work and to draw many new and sure to be contentious lines.If the Court were anywhere near to making a decision like this, Justice Scalia would have grilled the state's lawyer. In fact, he asked an astounding total of zero questions. This oral argument was interesting in the way it shone a light on the inaccuracy of the concept of "one person, one vote" that we've taken as a stunningly correct precept for half a century. So be a tad less fuzzy-headedly idealistic and face reality. That's always a pretty decent idea. And now, Scalia is gone and it's zero questions forever. But Scalia's vote was not needed, and the opinion the Court issued just now was unanimous. I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but as you can see from reading my old post, I was most interested in the possibility of using the Guarantee Clause: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Justice Breyer brought it up at oral argument, suggesting that it could influence the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause with respect to "the kind of democracy where people, whether they choose to vote or whether they don't choose to vote, are going to receive a proportionate representation in Congress."The opinion for the Court doesn't mention the Guarantee Clause or use the idea of "a republican form of government," but Justice Thomas, writing solo and concurring, has a lot to say about it. Excerpt: Click for more » Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! Yep. The President doesn't represent voters, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! They don't. The senate represents the states, which is why each state has the same amount of senators. But then, you knew that. You're just being an intentionally lousy poster as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! Doubt you felt this way on the SCOTUS overturn of anti-gay marraige laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! Yes, you cranial pauper. The Senate represents each of the 50 individual states. I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't know this, but as usual you don't let lack of knowledge stop you from bursting onto the scene and reminding us all that you're nothing more than a boisterous, drooling, buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 A legislative body that doesn't represent voters? That's a good one! Keep up the good work stupid! You are good for a laugh once a day! So Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer represent 20 million people. Those are two hard working ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 That article also completely mischaracterizes the role of the Senate, claiming that it represents 'voters'. It does not - the Senate represents each state - putting every state on equal footing. They lose credibility in making such statements, because it means that they either don't know what the hell they're talking about, or that they're deliberately being deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Yep. The President doesn't represent voters, either. Halliburton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Halliburton? That's the Vice President Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 what will this mean for north carolina, which means a whole lot more nationally than texas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) what will this mean for north carolina, which means a whole lot more nationally than texas? Not much. Since the OP tried to spin the whole business. The court ruled (unanimously) that when considering the population in drawing up congressional districts the entire population be considered and not just eligible voters. As it should be It doesn't change who can vote or eligibility requirements at all. . Edited April 5, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Not much. Since the OP tried to spin the whole business. The court ruled (unanimously) that when considering the population in drawing up congressional districts the entire population be considered and not just eligible voters. As it should be It doesn't change who can vote or eligibility requirements at all. . north carolina is in a very big battle in the sub courts over voter precints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 north carolina is in a very big battle in the sub courts over voter precincts I am no expert, but I believe the NC court challenge is over Voter ID, (types that can be used, number of pre-election day voting, whether you can vote in another district That kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 I am no expert, but I believe the NC court challenge is over Voter ID, (types that can be used, number of pre-election day voting, whether you can vote in another district That kind of thing. no. there is a major fight over redistricting which put many of our primaries on hold until June, at the earliest. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0311/Redistricting-or-gerrymandering-N.C.-dispute-embodies-national-debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts