The underlying basis of representative democracy, is voter choose their representatives. But with gerrymandering, representatives choose their voters.
Now, the GOP has been aware for quite some time that they lack popular support from voters. So choosing the voters is the solution they have devised to address that troublesome fact. They have just expanded it well beyond gerrymandering to a variety of voter suppression techniques.
Gorsuch interjected again to bring up Congressâ ability to get involved.
âOther options donât relieve this Court of its duty to vindicate constitutional rights,â Riggs pushed.
Thatâs what came out of her mouth, but in her head it was: âjeebusphuckingchristareyousuchaphuckingtoolthatyouarelookingforawaynottodoYOUR.ONE.JOB.ofaddressingviolationsoftheconsti-phucking-tutionbecauseyouonlycareaboutyoursidewinning?â
Totally true. I have witnesses.
The Republican party sets the highest standard for hypocrisy - always.
The gravediggers of democracy.
But in this case, as in nearly all high-profile ones, itâs very easy to do.
5-4, in favor of the Republicans.
That remains to be seen.
This is 100% absolutely Federalist Society âstates rightsâ garbage going on, but in a deliberately indirect and obscured manner. They are essentially trying to push the position that the Federal Constitution was not intended to address matters that the states and public could address on their own and, to do that, engaging in the circular logic of using evidence of states and the public attempting to address issues like this one as proof that the Constitution wasnât intended to address them as well. Itâs a false either-or (as Riggs eloquently pointed out). Itâs laissez faire Constitutional jurisprudence and intended to be a go to argument when faced with situations that directly touch upon the GOPâs/white Christian nationalistsâ ability to restructure the country to survive the existential threat that demographic shifts represent to their power. The point is to avoid as much as possible having to set what basically amount to universal minimum rights for the entire country, rights that would interfere with the GOPâs/white Christian nationalistsâ ability to fuck with target populations in their states against whom they want to discriminate, who they want to oppress and disempower.
Bookmark it! In the last 20 years, the only time that they âfailedâ to come through for the Republicans on a high-profile case was Obamacare.
Well going full blown fascist seems to me need the cover of darkness, so weâll have to wait until April 5th for the next new moon.
When the shift is complete then the SCOTUS. Will look at. You just do not understand that the Constitution was set up for white landowners and no one else.
So we should expect the primo argle bargle from the newest guy on the bench?
Yes, and not only that, Muhammad Musa al-Khwarizmi was Iranian.
white MALE landowners. Them wimminfolk ainât supposed to be voting or nothinâ.
Anyone who supports the rest of the folks getting to vote and having rights and whatnots are Clearly not âOriginalistsâ, and their arguments are invalid.
I hate all those mutherfuckers who didnât/wouldnât/couldnât vote for Hillary and allowed Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and who-the-hell-knows-else to make these decisions for us for thirty and forty years out. I just hope you and yours are the first ones to suffer from these policies before dying a long slow one.
Oh well. The important thing here is that we were saved the unspeakable horror of a president who gave speeches to investment bankers and took the going rate.
Oh yeah. Only the best.
Can a Justice write a hissy fit, complete with faux tears, into an opinion?
The famous 3/5ths compromise in the US Constitution is not well understood. It was slaveholders who wanted their slaves to count as whole persons. They didnât want them to vote or have rights or anything, but they wanted credit from the census for them to increase their power. It was non-slave states that didnât want them to count toward representation AT ALL. The compromise was that âfreeâ persons counted 100%, including women and children who couldnât vote, and all other persons counted as 3/5ths for representation, including in the Electoral College.
So when you say the âframersâ owned 3.5ths of a person, the more accurate way to say is that they wanted their property to count as a person only to the extent that it benefited the slaveholder.
pantsuit!!!
No, but the tear stains in the margins are a dead give-awayâŚ
There was almost no indication that a conservative justice was thinking that there should a judicial role at all.
Not so long as the govât is controlled by republicans, at least. If the democratic party gets into power, well, thatâs different.
Maybe emojiâs to the rescue?