SCOTUS Decisions

[DoctorWho]

There are more ways to view gerrymandering, but Democrats won 54% of the house seats with 53.4% of the popular vote. These justices are the worst extreme and partisans Republicans ever.

Not sure what you are driving at. It's like you love to be intentionally obtuse. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that 'your guys' are currently benefiting. Because ensuring democratic outcomes to elections is such a terrible cause to get behind. /sarcasm

The primary issue with gerrymandering is State legislatures. State legislatures have a far greater impact on the daily lives of Americans than the US Congress and President. Someone already posted egregious examples of this at the State level.

The secondary issue with gerrymandering is US House of Representatives. The reason gerrymandering is so important . . . will reapportion and redraw congressional districts. This was done at the state level, largely by Republican controlled legislators, 10 years ago.

Republicans turned their attention to local elections in the 1990's. Democrats gave up on local and State level elections deciding to focus on national elections. Republicans got to draw the districts in the majority of States in 2000. Then even more so in 2010. Republicans lose the House towards the end of the 10 year cycle when population movement reduces the effectiveness of the gerrymandered districts. This upcoming election is the best opportunity for the Democrats to challenge the Republican gerrymandering (at least at the State level).

1. Call another person obtuse.
2. Write self-contradicting comments (see bold)
3. Undermine your own argument by stating that Ds decided to "give up" on state and local level elections. (if there is evidence that R strength at the state level is the reason for state legislatures disproportionately being R (if true), as distinguished from D's "giving up" (if true), it hasn't been mentioned here. And if the R's have such a gerrymandering advantage, why not use it for the US congress? See the disproportionate (though small) number of seats by D, compared with popular house vote.)
4. I'm going to double down on shit I don't know much about because reasons. (Says, Aur, probably).

You're being obtuse again. You had to remove text to give point 2 any shot at passing, but failed anyways. Point 3 is... I don't know what. He's stating how he thinks the problem got to be where it is. Ds apparently didn't think Rs would try to undermine democracy, but they did. Point 4 is ad hominem, exactly what you're claiming in 1.

It's like you're reading the words, and interacting with them directly, without considering the idea they are presenting. You said primary, and then secondary, and then the reason! Which is it! Come on dude.

This thread is really mess:
- extreme partisan republicans on the court.
- Court should have stopped gerrymandering, it overreached in the past so no biggie.
- current court is more dredd scott than brown v. board.

I didn't care much about gerrymandering when Ds dominated and did it, so now that Rs do it some people see it as a great injustice. Maybe that's right, but asking for a coherent and compelling story that doesn't shoot itself in the foot isn't too much to ask for.

[aurelius]

will reapportion and redraw congressional districts.

Yeah, that is incorrectly stated. Congressional seats are reapportioned by the Federal government for each State after the census. The States redraw the districts.

For 3. You are cherry picking the data. The Republicans have only won the popular vote in the Presidency once in 5 elections yet won 3 Presidential terms. Republicans have had a majority in the House 16 out of the past 20 years-ish. Yet have only controlled the Senate 10 out of the past 20 years-ish. It seems that in elections in which gerrymandered districts play a lesser role, Republicans DO perform worse. And I already discussed why the Democrats have performed better at the end of the 10 year Census cycle in the House of Representatives.

Personally, I wouldn't be against fair and representative elections that result in democratic outcomes for US elections. It really isn't a partisan issue and just being on the wrong side of History. But it takes all kinds. You do you, boo.

And I triple down on shit I know nothing about.

No, not really. This thread is really mess.

Has the time to post showing how he is oh so much superior to everyone else/can't be bothered to write a substantive response.

*Removed gif. Served no substantive purpose to further discussion.

And done.

[DoctorWho]

"I'm disappointed in the gerrymandering decision. It is likely a "very good" judicial decision. Robert's writes a lot of "very good" judicial decisions. But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it. It's not like SCOTUS hasn't overreached before on lesser issues...
I put "very good" in quotes. I have not read the majority decision."

My friend, this was not a credibility-building way to start a thread.

[aurelius]

"I'm disappointed in the gerrymandering decision. It is likely a "very good" judicial decision. Robert's writes a lot of "very good" judicial decisions. But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it. It's not like SCOTUS hasn't overreached before on lesser issues...
I put "very good" in quotes. I have not read the majority decision."

My friend, this was not a credibility-building way to start a thread.

And what does my OP in this thread have anything to do with our latest interaction? The SCOTUS decision had no part in your post that tried to imply gerrymandering is fake news and my response and the points I raised to it.

This post further illustrates that you are either incapable of putting forth a substantive response to any of my points or unwilling. Either way, it appears you are only interested in participating in this thread to show your superiority and support the Republican party line.
"Gerrymandering? What's that? Didn't the Dems just win the house of Representatives?"
"Global warming? What's that? Didn't it just snow the other day?"

I'm gonna let you carry on your mission without me.

[cwd]

Constitutional law is not my expertise, I have no opinion re: whether the SC screwed up or not.

Gerrymandering at the state level looks unfair to me, and I think this is a simple enough subject that I'm willing to defend this position.

It's pretty clearly a way for a state's incumbent politicians (and current dominant party) to strengthen their position, to defend themselves against challengers. I would prefer state legislators and federal members of congress be replaced more often. I.e. I'm anti-incumbent.

Whether this favors D or R, I don't care much. Frequent swapping-out of officeholders is a prime defense against corruption, and is one of the great benefits of democracy. So, fuck gerrymandering.

[DoctorWho]

"I'm disappointed in the gerrymandering decision. It is likely a "very good" judicial decision. Robert's writes a lot of "very good" judicial decisions. But SCOTUS had an opportunity to end the polarization of politics in the US and failed to do it. It's not like SCOTUS hasn't overreached before on lesser issues...
I put "very good" in quotes. I have not read the majority decision."

My friend, this was not a credibility-building way to start a thread.

And what does my OP in this thread have anything to do with our latest interaction? The SCOTUS decision had no part in your post that tried to imply gerrymandering is fake news and my response and the points I raised to it.

This post further illustrates that you are either incapable of putting forth a substantive response to any of my points or unwilling. Either way, it appears you are only interested in participating in this thread to show your superiority and support the Republican party line.
"Gerrymandering? What's that? Didn't the Dems just win the house of Representatives?"
"Global warming? What's that? Didn't it just snow the other day?"

I'm gonna let you carry on your mission without me.

That's a good place to leave it.

[batherfurner]

As someone else already mentioned, it certainly seems that Roberts is considering his overall legacy as Chief and where his court might stand over time. I don't think it should come as a huge shock that this court would refrain from hearing a political question (gerrymanders), or that Roberts would rule against the executive in its handling of the census questionnaire. The true test, in my opinion, of where Roberts sees his court will be when the new and aggressive abortion laws come up (Alabama) and also the DACA cases they've scheduled to hear next term. In the former will be center stage his commitment to stare decisis, which is a crux issue for him. Not that he's ever had too much trouble overruling precedent before, but, in the recent history of the court, overturning Roe v Wade would be a hugely significant and radical shift.

[quark]

Constitutional law is not my expertise, I have no opinion re: whether the SC screwed up or not.

Gerrymandering at the state level looks unfair to me, and I think this is a simple enough subject that I'm willing to defend this position.

It's pretty clearly a way for a state's incumbent politicians (and current dominant party) to strengthen their position, to defend themselves against challengers. I would prefer state legislators and federal members of congress be replaced more often. I.e. I'm anti-incumbent.

Whether this favors D or R, I don't care much. Frequent swapping-out of officeholders is a prime defense against corruption, and is one of the great benefits of democracy. So, fuck gerrymandering.

A problem with frequently replacing legislators and members of congress is that the new ones often don't have much expertise. As a result, they look to others for information and those others might be staff (who exhibit all of the problems of long-serving politicians), lobbyists (obvious corruption issue) or think tanks and other interest groups (often with their own agenda).

What politicians don't tend to be responsive to is the majority of the people who elected them. See, for example, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/m ... -explained, the key sentence of which is "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it".

Would anti-incumbent policies make that better or worse?

Anti-incumbent policies are harder to defend if elections are fair, including without gerrymandering, on the grounds that the people should be able to elect whoever they want. Allowing the people to elect their preferred candidates, even if corrupt, seems consistent with democracy.

[quark]

As someone else already mentioned, it certainly seems that Roberts is considering his overall legacy as Chief and where his court might stand over time. I don't think it should come as a huge shock that this court would refrain from hearing a political question (gerrymanders), or that Roberts would rule against the executive in its handling of the census questionnaire. The true test, in my opinion, of where Roberts sees his court will be when the new and aggressive abortion laws come up (Alabama) and also the DACA cases they've scheduled to hear next term. In the former will be center stage his commitment to stare decisis, which is a crux issue for him. Not that he's ever had too much trouble overruling precedent before, but, in the recent history of the court, overturning Roe v Wade would be a hugely significant and radical shift.

The Court's preferred strategy at the moment is to eviscerate Roe v Wade by allowing severe restrictions. A straight overturning would have huge political implications that might be unpleasant for the Court and its legacy. We shall see what they'll do. They have indicated a desire to overturn precedent they don't agree with, for example, https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opin ... -in-place/ which doesn't capture the popular imagination but has vast implications for how the federal govt operates.

Whether the census decision will stick is an open question.

[cwd]

Frequent swapping-out of officeholders is a prime defense against corruption, and is one of the great benefits of democracy. So, fuck gerrymandering.

A problem with frequently replacing legislators and members of congress is that the new ones often don't have much expertise. As a result, they look to others for information and those others might be staff (who exhibit all of the problems of long-serving politicians), lobbyists (obvious corruption issue) or think tanks and other interest groups (often with their own agenda).

What politicians don't tend to be responsive to is the majority of the people who elected them. See, for example, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/m ... -explained, the key sentence of which is "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it".

Would anti-incumbent policies make that better or worse?

Anti-incumbent policies are harder to defend if elections are fair, including without gerrymandering, on the grounds that the people should be able to elect whoever they want. Allowing the people to elect their preferred candidates, even if corrupt, seems consistent with democracy.

I believe the re-election rate for congressmen is around 95%. I'm not sure what the optimal rate of turnover is, but I'm fairly confident it's higher than that.

Turnover is useful against corruption because it raises the costs involved. If the average congressman lasts 25 years in office, it's quite cost-effective to slip him $1M via shady real-estate deals or one of the many other forms of legalized bribery. You get decades of access in return, you can always have a chance to insert a little appendix into each new law regulating your industry.

If the average term falls to 12 years, this investment looks much worse.

[quark]

Frequent swapping-out of officeholders is a prime defense against corruption, and is one of the great benefits of democracy. So, fuck gerrymandering.

A problem with frequently replacing legislators and members of congress is that the new ones often don't have much expertise. As a result, they look to others for information and those others might be staff (who exhibit all of the problems of long-serving politicians), lobbyists (obvious corruption issue) or think tanks and other interest groups (often with their own agenda).

What politicians don't tend to be responsive to is the majority of the people who elected them. See, for example, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/m ... -explained, the key sentence of which is "Basically, average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it".

Would anti-incumbent policies make that better or worse?

Anti-incumbent policies are harder to defend if elections are fair, including without gerrymandering, on the grounds that the people should be able to elect whoever they want. Allowing the people to elect their preferred candidates, even if corrupt, seems consistent with democracy.

I believe the re-election rate for congressmen is around 95%. I'm not sure what the optimal rate of turnover is, but I'm fairly confident it's higher than that.

Turnover is useful against corruption because it raises the costs involved. If the average congressman lasts 25 years in office, it's quite cost-effective to slip him $1M via shady real-estate deals or one of the many other forms of legalized bribery. You get decades of access in return, you can always have a chance to insert a little appendix into each new law regulating your industry.

If the average term falls to 12 years, this investment looks much worse.

I don't see any evidence that type of corruption is common. Do you have any evidence that it's widespread? I'm much more concerned with the other issues I've raised.

For that matter, do you have any evidence that term-limits (the obvious anti-incumbent strategy) produce any better outcomes. The last time I looked they certainly did not and in fact increased the influence of lobbyists, etc.

[cwd]

Frequent swapping-out of officeholders is a prime defense against corruption, and is one of the great benefits of democracy. So, fuck gerrymandering.

A problem with frequently replacing legislators and members of congress is...

... not sure what the optimal rate of turnover is, but I'm fairly confident it's higher than that....

I don't see any evidence that type of corruption is common. Do you have any evidence that it's widespread? I'm much more concerned with the other issues I've raised.

For that matter, do you have any evidence that term-limits (the obvious anti-incumbent strategy) produce any better outcomes. The last time I looked they certainly did not and in fact increased the influence of lobbyists, etc.

I've read that Congressmen and Senators tend to get richer in office. What counts as evidence of corruption? If we define it as "legislator convicted and sent to prison" then yes, it's very rare. Only a very dumb legislator would take illegal bribes, there are lots of legal methods.

Term limits will tend to replace officeholders with another from the same party, often a close coworker. A district that is not made "safe" for either party due to gerrymandering, will be more likely to replace an officeholder with a real opponent from the other party. This would be a stronger anti-corruption effect.

How are we going to measure outcomes? What counts as "good" in terms of Congress?

I'm sort of a minimalist in regards to new laws, so a low rate of passage of legislation looks like a good outcome to me.

[aurelius]

I've read that Congressmen and Senators tend to get richer in office. What counts as evidence of corruption? If we define it as "legislator convicted and sent to prison" then yes, it's very rare. Only a very dumb legislator would take illegal bribes, there are lots of legal methods.

Keep in mind that many things that are illegal for others to are legal for members of Congress. Such as insider trading. Also, congressional candidates are allowed to keep the money donated to their campaign funds. It is as simple as donating to their campaign fund.

[JonA]

Keep in mind that many things that are illegal for others to are legal for members of Congress. Such as insider trading. Also, congressional candidates are allowed to keep the money donated to their campaign funds. It is as simple as donating to their campaign fund.

What's the basis for either of those claims? Even a simple google search quickly shows the limits imposed on left over campaign funds, and I couldn't find anything at all regarding insider trading being allowed. See specifically Chris Collins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Col ... olitician)

[aurelius]

@JonA You are correct. There are rules regarding the candidate's campaigns that prevent that. The legal loophole is 501(c)(4) shell corporations. Otherwise known as Super PAC's. This is from 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC

My information on insider trading is out dated. In 2012, Obama signed into law the STOCK act. The bill prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. Which was totally legal before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

A fun game for old timer Congress critters on committees was to publicly cast doubt on a government contract with a private corporation. "Defense committee chairman casts doubt on Lockhead contract!" This would lower the stock price, pushing the stock down. The Congress Critter would buy the depressed stock then reap the windfall when the committee approves the contract a week later.

[DirtyRed]

For a start, not having the majority party being in charge of the election process would be a good start.

How about an independent election commission with court oversight?

"Independent." Good one.

Unless you plan to fill this via some Young Adult dystopian lottery (which, if nothing else, wouldn't be the most boring idea), you'd have the majority party appointing their majority party buddies onto the now majority party "independent" commission, with judges appointed by the majority party overseeing the majority party appointed commission. You have managed to accomplish the exact same result we already have, only if people get irritated enough to vote the majority party out of the majority, it won't make nearly as much difference because the former majority party is still appointed all through the commission and courts.

The current system is, come to terms with it, the best we can do under the current broader paradigm, and is the inevitable result of the government being allowed to insert itself into every single facet of citizens' lives. You Big State dimwits wanted to play by Big State rules, and are now crying to the refs just because you aren't winning the game you wanted to play.

[DoctorWho]

My gut reaction is that things that restrict the overall scope of the government, especially the executive branch, is good. Gorsuch: worst partisan Republican ever.

https://www.cato.org/publications/comme ... i=74241730

[mbasic]

Affirmative Action thing shot down.

Technically, it was just more racism.

[aurelius]

Affirmative Action thing shot down.

Technically, it was just more racism.

sky is not falling. racial diversity can be achieved by using demographic qualifiers. Give more weight in admissions to people that are poor, single parent households, live in high crime areas, and so forth. Yes, some of these people will be white. A disproportionate amount will be minorities (Latin and black).

This ruling hurts white women the most.

[cgeorg]

Affirmative Action thing shot down.

Technically, it was just more racism.

sky is not falling. racial diversity can be achieved by using demographic qualifiers. Give more weight in admissions to people that are poor, single parent households, live in high crime areas, and so forth. Yes, some of these people will be white. A disproportionate amount will be minorities (Latin and black).

This ruling hurts white women the most.

Do white women with similar socio-economic backgrounds as other people do worse in college admissions? It seems like moving to the qualifiers you mentioned is a big feature, not a bug.