Forum Thread

Supreme Court Hears Case That Could Change American Democracy Forever

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 22 of 22 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I think it's probably more like 90%, and most probably have never heard of the word, and probably don't even know what the word means.

    I'll go a bit off topic, when I mentioned unions, these republicans are smarter than we give them credit for, if one takes into account where auto manufacturers are located now, and where unions used to be strong, because of republican gerrymandering, Wisconsin unions as well as other states are about busted because of Walker and his majority in the W congress, which meant that teachers lost and public service union employees lost, this right to work thing, Indiana union workers are suffering too.

    I stated earlier that we're in deep trouble if SCOTUS rules in favor of that dreaded G word.

    Gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: By the nature of the questions being asked by Kennedy, the consensus is that Kennedy will vote with the liberals against gerrymandering. It really should be a no-brainer, but it is indicative of how politically partisan the other conservatives on the court really are...especially Gorsuch and Alito, the two worst in my mind.
    I'm cautiously optimistic, but I can totally see Kennedy being convinced to change his mind and vote with the conservative bloc upholding Wisconsin's (and therefore every other red states deeply flawed) maps. Another thing I can see happening is Kennedy voting with the liberal bloc, but writing a very narrow opinion that won't have national consequences. I guess we will all find out next June.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Scotus usually is logical and reasonable.

    Partisan influence sucks but some things

    Should be too important to ignore the obvious.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    Scotus usually is logical and reasonable.

    Partisan influence sucks but some things

    Should be too important to ignore the obvious.

    I wouldn't call the Supreme Court logical or reasonable at all. They, in a 5-4 decision, opened up the flood gates to allow unlimited campaign spending by corporations and shadowy "non profit" organizations. They gutted the Voting Rights Act and gave the green light for red states to restrict access to the voting booth. And they ruled that for profit businesses could ignore the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Justice Kennedy voted with the majority for all of those decisions.

    Kennedy is no hero, but he does side with liberals every once in awhile. He's better than any replacement we would get if he retires or dies during the Donald era, but that's a pretty low bar.

    I should also point out that Roberts, not Kennedy, saved Obamacare. Kennedy voted with the conservatives on that case.

    That's why I am not spiking the football with regards to this gerrymandering case. Kennedy may have led us to believe that he'll vote with the liberals, but he can just as easily change his mind and vote with the right wing flank that he typically votes with.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "Democrats wouldn't find themselves in this pickle if they didn't sit out the 2010 midterm elections"

    I know some like to gloss over the phraseology and cause for the turn over but it ought to be thought about.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hippie punching the “professional left” and denigrating a voting bloc of Democrats on the eve of the midterms worked out well in 2010, huh?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "Democrats wouldn't find themselves in this pickle if they didn't sit out the 2010 midterm elections"

    I know some like to gloss over the phraseology and cause for the turn over but it ought to be thought about.

    Why do you consistently highlight sentence fragments? Is it impossible for you to discuss an entire sentence, paragraph, or heaven forbid, an entire post?

    Here's my entire sentence you distorted. The bold section is the part you selectively left out.

    "Democrats wouldn't find themselves in this pickle if they didn't sit out the 2010 midterm elections and effectively hand over redistricting to Republicans in the vast majority of states, but they did and now our only hope is convincing Justice Kennedy to side with the liberals on the court and rule Wisconsin's maps unconstitutional."

    Seriously man. Why do you have this pathological desire to misquote and misrepresent what people say?