Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 10, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider protecting politically gerrymandered voting districts from legal challenges in a case that could bolster Republican candidates and mark a show of force from the court's new conservative majority.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why do Republicans hate democracy?

#1 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-01-10 08:10 AM | Reply

"Why do Republicans hate democracy?'

Because it is profitable and it gives them power which they then use to the detriment of the rest of us. The present SC? Any doubt about how they will decide?

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 08:16 AM | Reply

States have the ability to draw their districts. Seems it was not a problem for the Democrats to draw districts for their political advantage for about half a century. Now it is?

#3 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-10 08:20 AM | Reply

"States have the ability to draw their districts. Seems it was not a problem for the Democrats to draw districts for their political advantage for about half a century. Now it is?"

I can't and won't try to defend that but voting districts should not be drawn in a partisan way. That's just common sense, What happened in the past, if it did as you describe, was wrong. It should be corrected today. The SC should certainly, if they are an honest and fair court, declare gerrymandering unconstitutional once and for all.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 | Posted by danni gerrymandering being made unconstitutional would require an amendment. If you think that 2/3s of the states would give up more power to the federal government, you are dreaming. That is what would be required.

#5 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-10 09:01 AM | Reply

Seems it was not a problem for the Democrats to draw districts for their political advantage for about half a century. Now it is?

It was a problem then and now, -------.

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-10 09:01 AM | Reply

gerrymandering being made unconstitutional would require an amendment.

Courts declare things unconstitutional all the time without amending the constitution. Are you really this dense?

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-10 09:04 AM | Reply

"#4 | Posted by danni gerrymandering being made unconstitutional would require an amendment. "

You don't know what you are talking about. An amendment is only required to overturn SC decisions. If they found gerrymandering constitutional then, yes, it would require an amendment to overturn their decision. I would hope, that on a topic so obviously contrary to fairness, that they would not approve of gerrymandering though I do realize that with the present court that is not, at all, likely. In then end an amendment will be required, for nearly every decision they make, to overturn their right wing decisions.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 09:12 AM | Reply

#8 | Posted by danni, Wrong, the SC has to find grounds to declare that that practice deprives individuals of their rights. Even when the Democrats controlled my state, after the poll tax was repealed,(a measure to disenfranchise poor blacks and Hispanics) you still had the right to vote for your representatives.

#9 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-10 10:06 AM | Reply

"Even when the Democrats controlled my state, after the poll tax was repealed,(a measure to disenfranchise poor blacks and Hispanics) you still had the right to vote for your representatives."

In actuality, the right to vote is not spelled out in the Constitution and has allowed southern states (and now midwestern states) to suppress voting rights with impunity, the SC could have fixed that but the corporate majority has chosen not to. Gee, I wonder why?

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 10:11 AM | Reply

Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. When Republicans do it, it's always criminal and when the Democrat Party does it, it's always noble, amiright? Only way to have a non-partisan map is to do it blind or randomly and no one will go for that.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-10 11:25 AM | Reply

"Gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder. When Republicans do it, it's always criminal and when the Democrat Party does it, it's always noble, amiright? "

No you're full of crap. It's always wrong no matter who does it. My own district is terribly gerrymandered by Democrats, it's disgusting. My district basically follows Old Dixie Highway from where I live in Broward County all the way north into Palm Beach County because that is where most black people happened to live and that allows Alcee Hastings to coast to victory year after year. Personally, I think he is a piece of pond scum but that doesn't matter he will always win until gerrymandering is declared unconstitutional or a law is passed against it.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 11:38 AM | Reply

Dems are mad they didn't think of this first when they were the party who was gerrymandering so much.

But honestly, Dems refocused their gerrymandering about a decade ago to immigrants instead. They don't need to gerrymander as long as they ensure our borders are as open as possible. If they are as smart as they think they are, they will start focusing more effort on getting those immigrants who can vote to immigrate to those states who always vote red.

#13 | Posted by humtake at 2019-01-10 11:49 AM | Reply

"But honestly, Dems refocused their gerrymandering about a decade ago to immigrants instead. They don't need to gerrymander as long as they ensure our borders are as open as possible."

Still pretending that illegal immigrants are voting but unable to support it with any facts. In other words, just lying.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Dems are mad they didn't think of this first when they were the party who was gerrymandering so much.

Seeing a lot of "but they did it too" in this thread.

Is intentional partisan gerrymandering wrong? Yes or no.

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-10 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

States have the ability to draw their districts. Seems it was not a problem for the Democrats to draw districts for their political advantage for about half a century. Now it is?

#3 | Posted by docnjo

States HAD that ability - then some of the red states were so racist that they LOST that ability to the voting rights act.

Then the supreme court stupidly said that racism was over so they removed the voting rights act.

Then the racist red states IMMEDIATELY went right back to drawing districts to keep minorities from voting.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-10 01:28 PM | Reply

#15 | Posted by JOE

Ya, It's called "whataboutism" and the only thing a lot of conservatives seem to know as a defense to their maleficence...

#17 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-01-10 01:36 PM | Reply

Gerrymandered districts have become easier to draw with the advent of more computing power and more-sophisticated databases. These offenses against the people have been more-egregious over time. 2010 was the rise Republican control due to the fact they won so many state legislatures that year and were put in charge of redistricting. State legislatures determine districts in almost every state.

Interesting fact though - Liberal states are the ones moving away from them. It is worth noting that California (you know land of "liberals") was the first to enact non-partisan commission based redistricting. I know more states have since moved in that direction since, including my state Michigan who overwhelmingly passed it this year. Interesting enough when looking at results county by county it was significantly less popular in most red parts of the state than blue.

Several states are great examples of gerrymandering taken to the max and I am sure we don't have to go there... Pennsylvania was corrected by the courts. Michigan, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Texas are some of the most gerrymandered out there.

Another item worth noting is that Gerrymandering really has nothing to do with the shape of districts. Some of the most bizarre looking districts could very well be unbiased.

#18 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-01-10 01:42 PM | Reply

#15 | Posted by JOE , Is the solution worse than the problem? I would feel a little uncomfortable if an unelected federal judge determined the boundary of my district. There is no guarantee that judge would be any more fair than a self interested political party. Judges are human, not angelic. Besides diluting the human zoo in Austin's(Keep Austin weird) political power is a good ideal. Too many state and federal employees that will always vote in their own interest live there.

#19 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-10 01:54 PM | Reply

Is the solution worse than the problem? I would feel a little uncomfortable if an unelected federal judge determined the boundary of my district.

Who said that's the only solution? Even if it were i'd rather see someone bound by a code of ethics drae my district, but there are olenty of places where independent commissions draw the districts and that is what we should be striving for.

And funny that you would decry "unelected federal judges" while your party rams suspected rapists and federalist society members onto the bench. Spare me.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-10 02:01 PM | Reply

Besides diluting the human zoo in Austin's(Keep Austin weird) political power is a good ideal. Too many state and federal employees that will always vote in their own interest live there.

#19 | Posted by docnjo

Translation - thwarting democracy is good if the voters in that district don't agree with me.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-10 02:50 PM | Reply

Too many state and federal employees that will always vote in their own interest live there.

#19 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

And why shouldn't they? If everyone voted in their best self interest, we'd have a much healthier, wealthier, liberal nation and the GOP/ONF and conservatism as a whole would be eliminated entirely.

#22 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-10 02:59 PM | Reply

#22 | Posted by IndianaJones Answer, Sheela Jackson Lee.

#23 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-01-10 04:15 PM | Reply

Sheela Jackson Lee.

#23 | Posted by docnjo

That is not an answer. To anything.

Let me warn you. (I know that is ridiculous!!) Like you care.

Be careful changing when the rules of the "game". If the People notice there really are no rules there is going to be a real mess.
-
"These violent delights have violent ends."

For further instruction on this matter see the Last Speech of Nicolae Ceauşescu, 21 December 1989.

(you won't be able to "see" everything as the State tried to turn the cameras off.)

But, you can hear what is happening and what is happening is the crowd suddenly realizing the Man in the Fuzzy Hat actually had no power over them anymore.

Enjoy.

www.youtube.com

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-10 04:39 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

another view showing the crowd surging forward.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-10 04:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort