Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Mr. Orange

RIP Good Sir
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
6,523
Reaction score
7,578
Points
113
Time for the Dems to gerrymander the hell out of all of the most populous states. I don't ever want to see a Repulican Congressperson from CA, NY, IL, MI, MA, etc etc again. McConnell and his goons will regret this once the Boomers die out.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
Not really.

The Court is involved because there exists no Federal law governing districting.

One can be passed.

Moreover, they didn’t say that Gerrymandering is legal, they said that SCOTUS can’t scotch something outright.

And that there are Federalism questions. Therefore a State Court could rule against gerrymandering.

This is still not set in stone. A New Democratic Congress can pass anti-gerrymandering legislation based on Federal jurisdiction over Federal elections.
Thank you for this post! So many bad takes based on what someone read on twitter as a headline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: caf

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
I also am getting tired of everyone saying the SCOTUS is pro republican. They are pro constitution. It is not up to SCOTUS to create policies. That is what congress is for. I feel at times the left wants to make SCOTUS an area they can get laws put in place that don’t go through Congress.

Take abortion. All congress has to do is pass a law that make it legal.
 
Last edited:

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,714
Points
148
I also am getting tired of everyone saying the SCOTUS is pro republican. They are pro constitution. It is not up to SCOTUS to create policies. That is what congress is for. I feel at times the left wants to make SCOTUS an area they can get laws put in place that don’t go through Congress.

Take abortion. All congress has to do is less a law that make it legal.
I admire your belief that the Supreme Court is apolitical.

I'm not buying that for one second, however. The conflicts with Clarence Thomas' wife alone would send shockwaves through the Continental Congress.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
I admire your belief that the Supreme Court is apolitical.

I'm not buying that for one second, however. The conflicts with Clarence Thomas' wife alone would send shockwaves through the Continental Congress.
Do you have an example? Do you disagree that the courts job is make rulings on laws, not create laws? It seems like the left wants to have them create laws vs. having to legislate and pass laws.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,804
Reaction score
8,415
Points
113
Do you have an example? Do you disagree that the courts job is make rulings on laws, not create laws? It seems like the left wants to have them create laws vs. having to legislate and pass laws.
This is just applying a right-wing talking point (lefties want "activist judges" to make laws instead of interpreting the constitution as written in the 1700s) to AZ's comments when it isn't relevant to what he's saying.

The court currently has more conservatives than liberals on it. Yes, the constitutional function of SCOTUS is to make rulings rather than be a legislative body, but that doesn't mean their decisions are always (perhaps ever) completely apolitical.

In regards to gerrymandering and their ruling, it's bad in a practical sense because when do you think we'll have a congress with the votes to pass such legislation to end the un-democratic process of political gerrymandering? It's literally rigging the system and it hurts engagement and progress.

EDIT: For the record, whether you believe SCOTUS should have decided to get involved in that decision or not, it shouldn't be a partisan issue to want to end it. When the Dems do it, it's wrong. If it was more widespread on the left the GOP would be railing against it.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,714
Points
148
Do you have an example? Do you disagree that the courts job is make rulings on laws, not create laws? It seems like the left wants to have them create laws vs. having to legislate and pass laws.
Here are just a few examples of Thomas' conflicts.


Also, for what its worth, I don't appreciate you telling me what "the left" believes. This is a straw man.

Once again, that type of stuff just furthers my point about how those in support of Trump use logical fallacy when discussing issues.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
If you want to know how far on the left have gone look at the recent border bill that was passed. It was a bi-partisan deal in the Senate, voted 84-8 in favor of it. The house ends up passing it but there is so much kicking and screaming from those on the left. To me it just shows those on the far left have no plan or want to meet half way on anything. It is "our way" or the wrong way. The bill passed bu a large majority in the house as well.

I for one love that we were able to get a bill passed with so much support on both sides. It gives me hope that the government can function.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
Here are just a few examples of Thomas' conflicts.


Also, for what its worth, I don't appreciate you telling me what "the left" believes. This is a straw man.

Once again, that type of stuff just furthers my point about how those in support of Trump use logical fallacy when discussing issues.
I am curious though. What do you think the role of the SCOTUS is?
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,714
Points
148
If you want to know how far on the left have gone look at the recent border bill that was passed. It was a bi-partisan deal in the Senate, voted 84-8 in favor of it. The house ends up passing it but there is so much kicking and screaming from those on the left. To me it just shows those on the far left have no plan or want to meet half way on anything. It is "our way" or the wrong way. The bill passed bu a large majority in the house as well.

I for one love that we were able to get a bill passed with so much support on both sides. It gives me hope that the government can function.
This is...absurd.

The reason the left is upset is because it just gave the government a $4.5B blank check with no assurances that kids won't still be living in the utter terror of the concentration camps they're currently being housed in.

The left has nothing BUT plans to stop these atrocities at the border, and the right supports people who do things like this:



We already know the end, Moderate Dems caved to Trump who is going to continue hurting children and keeping them in these shit conditions to please his base.

No plan for the migrants, no plan for the undocumented living in this country, no legislative pathway to getting "a wall."

Nothing, except failure. Catastrophic failure and not an ounce of good faith negotiation.

Both-sidesing this issue is absurd and not consistent with facts.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
This is...absurd.

The reason the left is upset is because it just gave the government a $4.5B blank check with no assurances that kids won't still be living in the utter terror of the concentration camps they're currently being housed in.

The left has nothing BUT plans to stop these atrocities at the border, and the right supports people who do things like this:



We already know the end, Moderate Dems caved to Trump who is going to continue hurting children and keeping them in these shit conditions to please his base.

No plan for the migrants, no plan for the undocumented living in this country, no legislative pathway to getting "a wall."

Nothing, except failure. Catastrophic failure and not an ounce of good faith negotiation.

Both-sidesing this issue is absurd and not consistent with facts.
So you agree there is an issue at the boarder? I see this a good step to solving the issue. It’s nice to both sides support this. This hot passed with a very large majority. I take that as a win and a sign there could be more bi partisan support to fix it.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,714
Points
148
So you agree there is an issue at the boarder? I see this a good step to solving the issue. It’s nice to both sides support this. This hot passed with a very large majority. I take that as a win and a sign there could be more bi partisan support to fix it.
This got passed out of desperation for the crisis Trump has single handedly created at the border.

The left wanted protections for the migrant children currently being housed in concentration camps.

Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would abide by some of the restrictions she had sought. They included a requirement to notify lawmakers within 24 hours after the death of a migrant child in government custody, and a 90-day time limit on children spending time in temporary intake facilities, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
How much do you want to bet that the Democrats get played, and Pence never lives up to this?

Trump's DOJ argued in court that these kids don't need toothbrushes or soap. They certainly are not credible, nor trustworthy.
 
Last edited:

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,306
Reaction score
3,542
Points
113
This got passed out of desperation for the crisis Trump has single handedly created at the border.

The left wanted protections for the migrant children currently being housed in concentration camps.



How much do you want to bet that the Democrats get played, and Pence never lives up to this?

Trump's DOJ argued in court that these kids don't need toothbrushes or soap. They certainly are not credible, nor trustworthy.
How did Trump create the crisist? Did he tell everyone it was ok to come to the US illegally? Or was that the Democrats and the sanctuary cities? Hard to blame Trump for more people trying to come to the US.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
21,090
Reaction score
21,889
Points
135
The reason Mitch Mconnell has only focused on appointing judges and not any legislation for years is because they are apolitical bodies. That's why he fought Obama so hard so he could seat someone that has no point of view besides interpreting the law. They aren't pro-republican judges, they just happen to be the #1 priority of the Republican majority leader who also happens to be blocking even bipartisan bills right now.

Why do we have to continually debate these things are bad faith arguments from the start?
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,200.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Advertisement

Radio

Top