Discussion:
Democracy loses at the Supreme Court
Add Reply
Adam H. Kerman
2019-06-27 21:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.

Department of Commerce v. New York

Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.

Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.

Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.

I've offered my theory before, what with the revelation that the Census
question change came from a Republican political consultant, now
deceased, who specializes in gerrymandering on behalf of the Republican
majority in several state legislatures. His motives weren't to
intimidate certain people into failing to complete the questionaire. I
never bought that at all, given the number of Hispanics in states the
Republicans would hope to have a larger Congressional delegation from,
including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida, so I don't see any
motive for an undercount.

Rather, the consultant wanted the question asked on the Census and not
the American Community Survey to improve his gerrymandered maps. Citizen
versus noncitizen is an indication of how many people are eligible to
register to vote.

But the potential for an undercount among Hispanics was a nice
distraction, for the Census isn't really the basis for our democracy. In
legislative districts, that there's some chance to elect representatives
of the people and not packing districts with voters to get a reliable
result, is the far more important issue. With better districts, a
potential undercount among a population group is irrelevant.

I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.

Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek

5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.

Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.

This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.

In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
shawn
2019-06-27 21:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
Rhino
2019-06-27 23:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
--
Rhino
shawn
2019-06-28 00:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:01:21 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
I don't think a single term is a good idea as you want your
representatives to have some time to learn how things work and would
put too much power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers as they
would know how to write proper legislation that someone new to
Washington might not be familiar with. Limit them to maybe two terms
for Senators and three or four terms for members of the House. That's
more than enough time to get familiar with the job and any committees
that they happen to be on while not making the job a life time
occupation the way it seems to be today.
Micky DuPree
2019-07-12 04:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:01:21 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard.
Degree matters. "Both sides do it" doesn't really capture the reality
of what's going on nationally.
Post by shawn
Post by Rhino
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent
to stay in his/her seat....
It would still favor the party that's doing the gerrymandering
irrespective of the individual candidates.
Post by shawn
I don't think a single term is a good idea as you want your
representatives to have some time to learn how things work and would
put too much power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers as they
would know how to write proper legislation that someone new to
Washington might not be familiar with. Limit them to maybe two terms
for Senators and three or four terms for members of the House. That's
more than enough time to get familiar with the job and any committees
that they happen to be on while not making the job a life time
occupation the way it seems to be today.
Term limits sound good on paper, but in practice, they limit voter
choice and devalue practical experience. Despite the approval rating of
Congress being extremely low right now, most Americans like their own
congressional representatives just fine, or at least find them
tolerable. It's the other states' represenatives and senators that they
don't like.

The most persistent problem with politicians being unresponsive to their
constituents' needs and desires is the necessity of toadying up to big
donors in order to get elected and reelected. Inserting term limits
into the equation would only exacerbate that problem, because then the
sheer inexperience of the candidates would leave a vacuum to be filled
by well-heeled political candidate factories, likely in a forced
marriage with the two main political parties, cranking out one green
beholding candidate after another (and I don't mean green in the sense
of environmentally friendly).

In the 19th century, an average Joe could make a decent politician if he
just applied himself. The 21st century is much more complicated.
Science, healthcare, and technology alone require more education and
experience to deal with, to say nothing of the increased complexity of
high finance and foreign relations. Term limits would toss out the
politicians who have the most experience with these things. Sure, I'd
prefer to install STEM people on congressional committees that deal with
science and technology, and international relations people on foreign
affairs committees, and let the lawyers be on the judiciary committees
and so on, rather than the catch-as-catch-can system based on power
rather than knowledge that currently exists, but term limits would just
make the matter worse.

-Micky
moviePig
2019-07-12 14:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 19:01:21 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard.
Degree matters. "Both sides do it" doesn't really capture the reality
of what's going on nationally.
Post by shawn
Post by Rhino
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent
to stay in his/her seat....
It would still favor the party that's doing the gerrymandering
irrespective of the individual candidates.
Post by shawn
I don't think a single term is a good idea as you want your
representatives to have some time to learn how things work and would
put too much power in the hands of lobbyists and staffers as they
would know how to write proper legislation that someone new to
Washington might not be familiar with. Limit them to maybe two terms
for Senators and three or four terms for members of the House. That's
more than enough time to get familiar with the job and any committees
that they happen to be on while not making the job a life time
occupation the way it seems to be today.
Term limits sound good on paper, but in practice, they limit voter
choice and devalue practical experience. Despite the approval rating of
Congress being extremely low right now, most Americans like their own
congressional representatives just fine, or at least find them
tolerable. It's the other states' represenatives and senators that they
don't like.
The most persistent problem with politicians being unresponsive to their
constituents' needs and desires is the necessity of toadying up to big
donors in order to get elected and reelected. Inserting term limits
into the equation would only exacerbate that problem, because then the
sheer inexperience of the candidates would leave a vacuum to be filled
by well-heeled political candidate factories, likely in a forced
marriage with the two main political parties, cranking out one green
beholding candidate after another (and I don't mean green in the sense
of environmentally friendly).
In the 19th century, an average Joe could make a decent politician if he
just applied himself. The 21st century is much more complicated.
Science, healthcare, and technology alone require more education and
experience to deal with, to say nothing of the increased complexity of
high finance and foreign relations. Term limits would toss out the
politicians who have the most experience with these things. Sure, I'd
prefer to install STEM people on congressional committees that deal with
science and technology, and international relations people on foreign
affairs committees, and let the lawyers be on the judiciary committees
and so on, rather than the catch-as-catch-can system based on power
rather than knowledge that currently exists, but term limits would just
make the matter worse.
Draft them (...from a pool of mental competents).
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Dimensional Traveler
2019-06-28 01:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
The Federal government would grind to a halt because no one knew how to
_do_ anything.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2019-06-28 02:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
The Federal government would grind to a halt because no one knew how to
_do_ anything.
Are you saying that would be a bad thing?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2019-06-28 04:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
The Federal government would grind to a halt because no one knew how to
_do_ anything.
Are you saying that would be a bad thing?
Yes, actually, I am.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Rhino
2019-06-28 04:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
The Federal government would grind to a halt because no one knew how to
_do_ anything.
Are these people incapable of writing down instructions? I'm under the
impression most Congresscritters are at least literate.... And the ones
that aren't could dictate instructions to scribes of some sort....
--
Rhino
Dimensional Traveler
2019-06-28 04:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
The Federal government would grind to a halt because no one knew how
to _do_ anything.
Are these people incapable of writing down instructions? I'm under the
impression most Congresscritters are at least literate.... And the ones
that aren't could dictate instructions to scribes of some sort....
Can't just write instructions for what they need to know.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2019-06-28 02:24:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
That would be nice to think, but they'd still spend their entire time in
office trying to get their successor elected.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-06-28 04:15:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
That would be nice to think, but they'd still spend their entire time in
office trying to get their successor elected.
Why would they care about a successor who they probably don't know well?
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-06-28 06:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:29:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Agreed. It's sad that we won't see that being forced on the states so
in much of the country incumbents will continue to be safe.
If people were limited to a single term in each office, there'd no
longer be any need to gerrymander to make it easier for an incumbent to
stay in his/her seat....
That would be nice to think, but they'd still spend their entire time in
office trying to get their successor elected.
Why would they care about a successor who they probably don't know well?
Party politics.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2019-06-28 00:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
As best as I can tell, in recent years the Republicans have been
extremely aggressive at voter suppression by various ways. MSNBC
reported how they essentially disenfranchised Dodge City, a
largely minority population, by moving the sole poling place
out of town for no reason. Voter ID efforts have been shown,
in court, that there had no true basis other than voter
suppression.

It's very troubling.
moviePig
2019-06-28 02:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by shawn
Yes, all the parties do it but lately some of the Republican states
have gone overboard. That said I would like to see it made illegal for
any party to do it, but that's not going to happen. Of course there
would always be the question of what counts as gerrymandering. In
North Carolina it's been obvious but what if a state chooses to extend
one district a few miles in one direction just because that's where
the people live need to fill out a district that also so happens to
help one party gain a majority in that district? It would be a never
ending argument.
As best as I can tell, in recent years the Republicans have been
extremely aggressive at voter suppression by various ways. MSNBC
reported how they essentially disenfranchised Dodge City, a
largely minority population, by moving the sole poling place
out of town for no reason. Voter ID efforts have been shown,
in court, that there had no true basis other than voter
suppression.
It's very troubling.
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst. Oddly, it's something *both* sides brag about...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
BTR1701
2019-06-28 03:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
FPP
2019-06-28 07:01:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
11,000 lies and counting.
Multiple "settlements" for stealing from charity.
Subverting the Constitution by stealing a SCOTUS seat.
2 Republican SITTING Congressmen are under indictment for insider
trading and stealing from their campaign chest.
Dealing arms to terrorists to subvert the law and funneling the cash
against the express wishes of Congress.
Lying to the FBI (and being pardoned for it.)
Lying to Congress (and being pardoned for it).

Jesus, the list is endless - and capped off with the biggest crook of
them all.
The rest of leadesrhip is aiding and abetting him.

And, finally... mistreating children. Leaving them cold, hungry, dirty,
infested with lice - for a mere $7500 a day in taxpayer money.

Please... go fuck yourself.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
moviePig
2019-06-28 13:20:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
11,000 lies and counting.
Multiple "settlements" for stealing from charity.
Subverting the Constitution by stealing a SCOTUS seat.
2 Republican SITTING Congressmen are under indictment for insider
trading and stealing from their campaign chest.
Dealing arms to terrorists to subvert the law and funneling the cash
against the express wishes of Congress.
Lying to the FBI (and being pardoned for it.)
Lying to Congress (and being pardoned for it).
Jesus, the list is endless - and capped off with the biggest crook of
them all.
The rest of leadesrhip is aiding and abetting him.
And, finally... mistreating children.  Leaving them cold, hungry, dirty,
infested with lice - for a mere $7500 a day in taxpayer money.
Please... go fuck yourself.
And I was thinking about stuff like SCOTUS picks and gerrymandering...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Adam H. Kerman
2019-06-28 17:40:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
. . .
Massive idiocy snip

My thanks to FPP and moviePig for contributing enough STOOPID to the
thread I started to murder it.
Ubiquitous
2019-06-28 17:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .
Massive idiocy snip
My thanks to FPP and moviePig for contributing enough STOOPID to the
thread I started to murder it.
There's only one way to kill a tread...

--
Watching Democrats come up with schemes to "catch Trump" is like
watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch Road Runner.
FPP
2019-06-28 22:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
11,000 lies and counting.
Multiple "settlements" for stealing from charity.
Subverting the Constitution by stealing a SCOTUS seat.
2 Republican SITTING Congressmen are under indictment for insider
trading and stealing from their campaign chest.
Dealing arms to terrorists to subvert the law and funneling the cash
against the express wishes of Congress.
Lying to the FBI (and being pardoned for it.)
Lying to Congress (and being pardoned for it).
Jesus, the list is endless - and capped off with the biggest crook of
them all.
The rest of leadesrhip is aiding and abetting him.
And, finally... mistreating children.  Leaving them cold, hungry,
dirty, infested with lice - for a mere $7500 a day in taxpayer money.
Please... go fuck yourself.
And I was thinking about stuff like SCOTUS picks and gerrymandering...
"In for a dime, in for a dollar..."
--
There are three inescapable facts from the Mueller report that Mitch
McConnell can't hide:
1. A foreign government attacked our elections in order to help Donald
Trump.
2. Trump welcomed that help.
3. Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his actions.
-Elizabeth Warren
moviePig
2019-06-28 13:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and
worst.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ed McMahon lives!
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Ubiquitous
2019-06-28 03:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, it's widely accepted that Republicans break the rules first and worst.
TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity
Rhino
2019-06-27 23:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.
Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.
I've offered my theory before, what with the revelation that the Census
question change came from a Republican political consultant, now
deceased, who specializes in gerrymandering on behalf of the Republican
majority in several state legislatures. His motives weren't to
intimidate certain people into failing to complete the questionaire. I
never bought that at all, given the number of Hispanics in states the
Republicans would hope to have a larger Congressional delegation from,
including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida, so I don't see any
motive for an undercount.
Rather, the consultant wanted the question asked on the Census and not
the American Community Survey to improve his gerrymandered maps. Citizen
versus noncitizen is an indication of how many people are eligible to
register to vote.
But the potential for an undercount among Hispanics was a nice
distraction, for the Census isn't really the basis for our democracy. In
legislative districts, that there's some chance to elect representatives
of the people and not packing districts with voters to get a reliable
result, is the far more important issue. With better districts, a
potential undercount among a population group is irrelevant.
I'd say the Democratic Party missed the boat on this one, but they
practice partisan gerrymandering in state legislatures too, like my
state.
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
How would you feel about not letting anyone run for a second term in ANY
office? In other words, if you get elected to the House, you're allowed
one term to do what you can, then you're ineligible to ever run for the
House again, although you could run for the Senate or President or other
offices.
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2019-06-28 01:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
How would you feel about not letting anyone run for a second term in ANY
office? In other words, if you get elected to the House, you're allowed
one term to do what you can, then you're ineligible to ever run for the
House again, although you could run for the Senate or President or other
offices.
I don't agree with term limits, except for president of the United
States, and certainly not one-term limits. It takes too long to build up
political coalitions in a legislative body. No one would ever get it
right in just one term.

I'd prefer to have districts that are unsafe for incumbents, then they'd
really have to be on their toes.
Rhino
2019-06-28 04:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
How would you feel about not letting anyone run for a second term in ANY
office? In other words, if you get elected to the House, you're allowed
one term to do what you can, then you're ineligible to ever run for the
House again, although you could run for the Senate or President or other
offices.
I don't agree with term limits, except for president of the United
States, and certainly not one-term limits. It takes too long to build up
political coalitions in a legislative body. No one would ever get it
right in just one term.
I'd prefer to have districts that are unsafe for incumbents, then they'd
really have to be on their toes.
Wouldn't that mean they spent all their time schmoozing with
constituents to ensure they have no serious enemies and little or none
on actual legislative work?
--
Rhino
Dimensional Traveler
2019-06-28 04:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
How would you feel about not letting anyone run for a second term in ANY
office? In other words, if you get elected to the House, you're allowed
one term to do what you can, then you're ineligible to ever run for the
House again, although you could run for the Senate or President or other
offices.
I don't agree with term limits, except for president of the United
States, and certainly not one-term limits. It takes too long to build up
political coalitions in a legislative body. No one would ever get it
right in just one term.
I'd prefer to have districts that are unsafe for incumbents, then they'd
really have to be on their toes.
Wouldn't that mean they spent all their time schmoozing with
constituents to ensure they have no serious enemies and little or none
on actual legislative work?
Not getting any legislative work done would earn them enemies.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2019-06-28 00:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
Yes and no.

IMHO, sometimes hotly contested elections got very ugly forcing
the incumbent to promise unrealistic or unreasonable things.
Sometimes the pressure mounts to capitulate to the fad of the
moment. For instance, the U.S. lost a lot of good politicians in
the 1950s who were accused of being 'soft on communism'.

I've seen very good politicians voted out of office thanks
to b/s media reports and very skillful opponents. Just
because someone is good on the campaign trail does not
necessarily make them good in government.

These days, some politicians must devote considerable time to
fund raising and lobbyists in order to keep their seat. That
is bad.

Admittedly, I don't know what the answer is.

Here's a question. In some places, certain public officials are
appointed, in other places they are elected. Examples
include school boards and district attorneys, but there are
likely many more. Any thoughts on which approach is better?

(Personally, regarding district attorneys, I'm not sure whether
it's better to appoint or elect them.)
Adam H. Kerman
2019-06-28 01:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
. . .
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
Sorry, I haven't read the opinion or the briefs yet, but the discussion
I've heard said equal protection arguments were made on the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment and no one said anything about
the 15th.
Adam H. Kerman
2019-07-05 19:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Rucho v. Common Cause, consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek
5-4 opinion by Roberts; Kagan's dissent was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer,
and Sotomayor.
Holding: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions
beyond the reach of the federal courts.
This opinion is disgusting, given that Radical Republican
Reconstruction-era civil rights legislation and Voting Rights Act of
1964, both enforcing the 15th Amendment, put redistricting issues into
the hands of the federal courts.
In my opinion, democracy is best served with districts that aren't safe
seats for incumbants, that aren't packed with predictable voters, that
could switch back and forth between parties. When politicians have to
run harder for re-election, we get better elected officials.
I've been listening to the audio transcript of the oral arguments. Rucho
is more interestig than Lamone because the state of North Carolina was
represented by Paul Clement, always a top advocate when appearing before
the Supreme Court. Clement was Solicitor General under GW Bush, largely
in his second term, and would appear before the Supreme Court in any
case to which the government was a party or had an interest in, or
sometimes, if the Supreme Court requested the opinion of the government.

Clement is sharp, always makes his point in the first sentence. Trump
would never nominate him.

Breyer likes his hypotheticals and takes minute after minute after
minute to get going. Before he did one of his hypotheticals, he starts
out by saying how extremely difficult it is for federal courts to come
up with a fair solution on this issue.

Aargh. Breyer just helpfully gave Roberts cover for his opinion that
it's all non-judiciable, that the federal courts have no role in
anything so political.

Sotomayor came up with a scenario in which she links viewpoint
discrimination, unconstitutional under plenty of other First Amendment
cases, with a hypothetical in which the majority party in the state
legislature redistricts in such a way that an incumbant of the other
party will have a hard time getting re-elected is viewpoint
discrimination.

Wait. What?

She's almost suggesting that the legislature is obliged to protect all
incumbants in redistricting!

Kagan is clearly the sharpest on this issue, and both Alito and Gorsuch
asked some good questions. This would have been far more informative if
Kagan asked most of the questions and Clement answered.
RichA
2019-07-12 04:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.
Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.
Pity. He could have said (rightly) that these people are dangerous and that we need to know where they are. 90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years. That's the math because of the current rate of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from s---hole countries south of the border. Now, given what these people have done to their own countries (no reason Central and South America couldn't be as prosperous as Europe except for the PEOPLE THERE) it's legitimate to try to stem the tide of them coming into the U.S.
Adam H. Kerman
2019-07-12 04:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.
Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.
Pity. He could have said (rightly) that these people are dangerous and
that we need to know where they are.
Do you understand how this three branches of government thing works?
It's illegal to use Census data in that manner. A federal judge can't
just find the provision unconstitutional and have no ability to make a
finding that unnamed people are dangerous.
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
That's not unconstitutional.
Post by RichA
That's the math because of the current
rate of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from s---hole countries south of the border.
Now, given what these people have done to their own countries (no reason
Central and South America couldn't be as prosperous as Europe except for
the PEOPLE THERE) it's legitimate to try to stem the tide of them coming
into the U.S.
I assume that the ones escaping criminal gangs to come to the United
States are not themselves responsible for the high crime rate that
turned those places into shitholes.
David Johnston
2019-07-12 06:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.
Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.
Pity. He could have said (rightly) that these people are dangerous and that we need to know where they are.
He could have, but the Supreme Court would have laughed in his face
because using the census that way is illegal. The only purpose to the
question is to make the census less accurate by counting fewer of the
people there.

90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.

And all of them will be Elvis impersonators!
FPP
2019-07-12 08:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Two much-anticipated opinions were released today.
Department of Commerce v. New York
Holding: The secretary of the Department of Commerce did not violate the
enumeration clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a
citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district
court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the
evidence tells a story that does not match the secretary's explanation
for his decision.
Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, but Parts I and II of his
opinion were unanimous, and the rest of it was supported by some,
opposed by some, with some justices both supporting and opposing
portions of the opinion.
Basically, John Roberts said that the Trump administration could have
gotten away with it by properly following procedure and making a
legitimate legal argument. He essentially said the Secretary of
Commerce lied about the government's motives for adding the question.
Pity.  He could have said (rightly) that these people are dangerous
and that we need to know where they are.
He could have, but the Supreme Court would have laughed in his face
because using the census that way is illegal.  The only purpose to the
question is to make the census less accurate by counting fewer of the
people there.
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
And all of them will be Elvis impersonators!
Yet another accomplishment Trump COULD have accomplished if he wasn't
such a lying bumblefuck.

But, then... that's what bumblefucks do best - snatch defeat from the
jaws of victory.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
BTR1701
2019-07-12 16:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
More like 15 years if we elect one of the Democrats who want to both
decriminalize illegal entry and reward everyone who does it with free
health care on the backs of taxpayers.

Central America will empty out like a sink with its drain plug pulled.
Adam H. Kerman
2019-07-12 17:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
More like 15 years if we elect one of the Democrats who want to both
decriminalize illegal entry and reward everyone who does it with free
health care on the backs of taxpayers.
Central America will empty out like a sink with its drain plug pulled.
Rich wrote that, not Johnston. Johnston fucked up the quoting level in
his followup.
shawn
2019-07-12 17:28:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
More like 15 years if we elect one of the Democrats who want to both
decriminalize illegal entry and reward everyone who does it with free
health care on the backs of taxpayers.
That depends on what they mean by free health care. As they've been
pointing anyone in the USA can get emergency care whether they can pay
or not. So that level of care is available for undocumented
immigrants. If they mean taking care of all levels of health care like
paying for drugs then that is an entirely different thing, especially
if they aren't going to provide that for US citizens first.
Post by BTR1701
Central America will empty out like a sink with its drain plug pulled.
Adam H. Kerman
2019-07-12 17:35:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
More like 15 years if we elect one of the Democrats who want to both
decriminalize illegal entry and reward everyone who does it with free
health care on the backs of taxpayers.
That depends on what they mean by free health care. As they've been
pointing anyone in the USA can get emergency care whether they can pay
or not. So that level of care is available for undocumented
immigrants.
That's a good point. The uninsured seek care in emergency departments
for conditions that they should see their G.P. about (except they don't
have one), which costs society a fortune. It's a truly wasteful aspect
of American health care.
Post by shawn
If they mean taking care of all levels of health care like
paying for drugs then that is an entirely different thing, especially
if they aren't going to provide that for US citizens first.
Post by BTR1701
Central America will empty out like a sink with its drain plug pulled.
trotsky
2019-07-13 10:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by RichA
90% of the southern half of the U.S. will be LATINO in 55 years.
More like 15 years if we elect one of the Democrats who want to both
decriminalize illegal entry and reward everyone who does it with free
health care on the backs of taxpayers.
Central America will empty out like a sink with its drain plug pulled.
Correct, America will continue to be a melting pot. And white
supremacists can continue to try and figure out what the word "oxymoron"
means.

Loading...