Strike Down GOP Gerrymandering

I'm not going to spoon-feed you the law. Feel free to look it up and read some judicial opinions.

 

You get so many views for free before they block you.

 

I just quoted the law. Gerrymandering deprives nobody of anything.

 

National Redistricting Foundation says it is Republicans doing so: https://apnews.com/d30b289c43f543079555304f2be53b6a

 

Not true. I have read many articles in DK and have posted on its chats without donating ONE CENT for many years.

 

100% correct.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

 

It’s funny how courts disagree with his interpretation of the law.

 

Which individuals are not being equally protected by what law?

 

Where the HECK did you get that idea?

Seriously. I want to know.

 

Look it up.

Christ. Lazy bastage.

 

Because that was the "game-rule" until very recently.

It goes back a long, long time - and in any nation on earth longevity typically also means stagnation. Which we've done to our "democracy" for the past two centuries.

It's time to move on without the either the Electoral College or Gerrymandering to influence election-outcomes:
*In the former, because it is a constitutional mistake since 1812, a national law is need (or decision of the Supreme Court) to oblige the Electoral College to report ONLY THE RESULT OF THE POPULAR-VOTE. (For which it would help ENORMOUSLY requiring that the states spend the money automating!)
*In the latter, assuring that redistricting every ten-years is done only by a public-commission in which the balance between the two main parties is maintained.

(It would also help to make voting not only a right but a duty, based upon a National Identity Card as well as a fine for not voting. One can always enter a blank ballot if so desired.)

 

Too lazy to spell it out in words ... ?

Ever thought of "debating" on a Message Board where one-liners are the modus-operandi ...?

 

Nope, never had that problem on the "Daily Kos" news-site ...

 

Let's see it, please.

That behavior is tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot. Are they THAT DUMB?

Methinks not ...

 

I accept your resignation from the discussion.

 

"Debating" doesn't mean citing chapter and verse for someone who asks "Well, durr, how does it violate the Equal Protection Clause?", and is apparently unable to use Google and read cases for themselves.

I'm not doing your work, or his work. That's not "debating"; that's you and him being lazy.

 

You asking questions that have already been answered isn't "discussion". It's you being unwilling to lift a finger, or a brain cell, to follow up on what you've already been told.

You asked why states can't gerrymander the living Hell out of themselves, and I told you. Why are you unwilling or unable to read about the Equal Protection Clause?

Afraid that you might be wrong?

 

Who is not being equally protected from what law?

 

The people whose vote is diluted because of gerrymandering.

How about this for a craaaazy twist---why don't you engage in "discussion" for a change and tell the class why you think that it's magically "good" for one party or the other to gerrymander their state to rig the vote in favor of their political party? What makes you think that you can wave your Harry Potter magic wand to change the applicable law rendering court decisions under the Equal Protection Clause somehow inapplicable? ("gerrymanderous legalio!!!" *swishing wand*)

 

He has no idea what he's talking about. He seems to think that gerrymandering, as long as it favors the GOP, is somehow fantabulous because he read the Equal Protection Clause and disagrees with well-settled law as to what it means. Meanwhile, if you tell him where to look, and he doesn't look, it means that you have to keep explaining to him why he's wrong (an explanation which is meaningless, because he absolutely will refuse to understand why ****ing people out of the equal power of their vote is unconstitutional), because if you don't, you're not "debating" or "discussing" properly.

LOL

 

No, each voter's vote is counted equally.

 

So you say. I knew that this would be your completely tone-deaf and inadequate "debating" point.

Courts say otherwise. Why are they wrong? Should we substitute your judgment for theirs, thereby institutionalizing vote rigging?

 

So are you saying that some people's votes are counted and then others are tossed in the trash and not counted? I've never head of that happening.

 

No. Go read the case law, my benighted and undemocratic amigo.

Why are you not reading the law? Why aren't you telling me what your own view is--you don't want to "debate" or "discuss"?