BRING IT ON!!! I welcome this fight. Gerrymandering = Cheating. Say this over and over. Gerrymandering = Cheating. Every time this is debated say it. Gerrymandering = Cheating! Gerrymandering = Cheating! Gerrymandering = Cheating!
4 Likes
Exactly - they will wrap themselves in rubbish - bleating raucous cries of âright of self-determinationâ - âfreedom from interferenceâ - âtraditionâ - all to justify the misuse of the power of the majority position ⌠the GOP has been brutally subordinating reasonable, rational logical geographic representation to the crafting of the most contorted illogical districts with the only priority being the preservation of the maximum number of districts for the GOP - sound representation be damned.
2 Likes
Well ⌠they better get busy and re-goofy it up âŚ
cause itâs not lookinâ good for emâ ⌠he he â
3 Likes
Except that itâs a violation of Federal law since 1967. Otherwise, yes. Thereâs not a Constitutional issue, but there is a statutory one.
Definitely.Itâs unlikely that a federal court will step on on a state constitutional matter. So long as they have single member districts, and so long as theyâre roughly the same population, itâs up to the states to decide the details.
2 Likes
I heard that one as Mickey talking with his psychologist:
MM: Doc, Iâm leaving Minnie. Iâve had it.
Doc: Yes, Mickey, youâve told me that you were concerned that Minnie is crazy.
MM: No Doc, I didnât say she was crazy. I said she is fucking Goofy.
3 Likes
3 Likes
I hope you know Larry Eisenberg, the Times commenter poet laureate. Your political verseâŚcould be lots worse. In fact, youâve both got huge talentâŚ
1 Like
Just one more count of âObstructionâ / âDereliction of Dutyâ
1 Like
âObjectionâ -
implies facts not in evidence
Sure Doc -
Try selling that to Merrick Garland
1 Like
Fight on boyos. SHOW PA what a bunch of true dickheads you are. The Constitution be damned.
Like the Suquesaharda?
My guess is that theyâll attempt to get their original redrawn proposal accepted, since that had districts that were generally compact and contiguous, while still preserving an even harder Republican gerrymander than the current one (which makes you wonder why they made such an obviously bad map in the first place if they could have gotten a similar result without it being so blatant when you look at the map).
1 Like
To be fair, you also get all that blather about where candidates live. It would be nice if they were to explain whether Pennsylvania law requires a candidate to live in her district. Thereâs no federal law that does. (Iâm not sure whether it would even be permitted for a state to require it. Or whether itâs ever been litigated.)
Hereâs an article from a Victoria (TX, not BC) paper about that very thingâtwo candidates running to replace Farenthold who donât live in the district:
ETA If I werenât so lazy, Iâd look at the case where the Supremes held that the state canât add a term limit to the constitutional qualifications for representatives or senators. Seems like it would be on point, but I just have no recollection of the actual holding, just the judgment in the instant case. Nineteen years out of practice and I have gone to seed.
ETA Well, the language sure looks on point, and maybe dispositive:
Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framersâ vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
CAVEAT: it was a 5-4 opinion: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) And it was a Stevens opinion with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and OâConnor dissenting.
2 Likes
Oh , the poor *ol Perverts .
Well, except for that, yeah, if youâre going to nitpick. 
1 Like
Their stated intent when creating the maps was Republican Domination
FYI - Impeachment is a real possibility. They only need a simple majority in the lower house and a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. If it comes down to a straight party line vote. They have what they need to do it.
It really is important to play by the rulesâŚthough, the McConnell Rule is that the opposing party can block judges in the last year of a presidentâs term, and thatâs one the Democrats should do the next time they have the chance. But tit for tat just makes us as bad as them in the eyes of the middle voters, and we want to win them over to making the nation better for all people instead of the few wealthy ones, which is not at all an equivalent position. If we take a few lumps making the nation better, so be it.
Respectfully, Doc -
Because your concept of the idealistic, principled âmiddle voterâ is not to me in evidence weâll just have to agree to disagree. 