Another billionaire goes after Trump

[jillian]

Why did you bother with pointing out 'another billionaire', when "Democratic backer" said it all?

because they say "another billionaire" when they talk about the myriad of billionaires spreading trump propaganda.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People work a second job if it isn't necessity?

If you make enough money to pay your bills and have a little left over, why would you work a second job?

Because people want to get ahead in life. Younger people especially want to work while they are young enough to do it.

My nephew works with troubled children. He makes pretty good money, but his Masters degree wasn't free. He can live comfortably on what he makes, but he wants to payoff his student loans and get that off of his back. So he's paying ahead of time as much as he can. Since he's off all summer (with pay) he found a second job to bring in two incomes. It's a department store job and way under his pay grade, but he's willing to work it to get ahead in life. Now that he's back at his regular job, he still works weekends and some nights. He gets a lot of holidays off too and works his second job on those days.

A close friend of mine works two full-time jobs. He works at the same company I do, and also works for the county. He wanted to raise his family the way he was raised with a mother at home and the father bringing in the pay. The kids are grown and all out of the house now, but he continues to work his second job because of the great pay and seniority. He can retire early from that job when the time comes.

It's tradition really. People want to hand down whatever they can to their children so they can get a jump on life.

You've proven my point that American workers don't make enough money.

The term "enough money" is determined by the individual. There are very few middle-class people that would tell you they make enough money. No matter how much you make, you can always use more.

 

[Auld Phart]

Why did you bother with pointing out 'another billionaire', when "Democratic backer" said it all?

because they say "another billionaire" when they talk about the myriad of billionaires spreading trump propaganda.

Right....


this is the ONLY anti-trump billionaire in the USA...

POSSIBILY the world.

Go back to doing your filing...

clerk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever definition(s) you'd like to share.
To fit your 60% of GDP claim.

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy, has expanded an average 2.2% since the recession ended, behind the 3% advance in the prior expansion.'

There Will Be No Real Recovery Without The Middle Class

Anything else?

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy

Thanks. So no proof of your original claim, "Sixty-percent of the economy is middle class spending"?

Only in your sociopath mind. Why don't you quit being a Trump butt wipe and start fighting for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

I'm having too much fun mocking your idiocy.

You mean distorting facts?

Yes, I also mock your distorted facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever definition(s) you'd like to share.
To fit your 60% of GDP claim.

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy, has expanded an average 2.2% since the recession ended, behind the 3% advance in the prior expansion.'

There Will Be No Real Recovery Without The Middle Class

Anything else?

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy

Thanks. So no proof of your original claim, "Sixty-percent of the economy is middle class spending"?

Only in your sociopath mind. Why don't you quit being a Trump butt wipe and start fighting for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

Exacrtly. And Toddsterpatriot 's question "What income range measures the middle class?" is very appropriate because its changing.

Thanks to GOP past and trump's plans, the "middle class" is doomed.

By the time the trumpkins realize what they have done, it will be too late.

(Actually, I believe its already too late.)

There are two kinds of 'Trumpkins,' the rich who will prosper more, and the mentally ill.

There is an answer to help the middle class AND business:

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

Prove it you big liar.

Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

Excellent! Handing trillions in refunds to corporations.

 

[OnePercenter]

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy, has expanded an average 2.2% since the recession ended, behind the 3% advance in the prior expansion.'

There Will Be No Real Recovery Without The Middle Class

Anything else?

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy

Thanks. So no proof of your original claim, "Sixty-percent of the economy is middle class spending"?

Only in your sociopath mind. Why don't you quit being a Trump butt wipe and start fighting for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

Exacrtly. And Toddsterpatriot 's question "What income range measures the middle class?" is very appropriate because its changing.

Thanks to GOP past and trump's plans, the "middle class" is doomed.

By the time the trumpkins realize what they have done, it will be too late.

(Actually, I believe its already too late.)

There are two kinds of 'Trumpkins,' the rich who will prosper more, and the mentally ill.

There is an answer to help the middle class AND business:

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Your plan would bankrupt the country; we are 20 trillion in debt and growing.

Your plan would cause such massive inflation we would end up in a depression.

Your plan would cause rental prices for apartments and houses to increase leaving many people with unaffordable housing.

Your plan would force multinational companies to give up their US interests and move everything overseas.

Your plan would eliminate any possible minimum wage job than can be replaced though automation.

Back for more?

You truly are a gluten for punishment.

All of your questions are answered in my post.

 

[CowboyTed]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

 

[CowboyTed]

One thing consistent with these democrat, Swamp Rat "billionaires" is nobody really knows how they obtained all their cash.

According to Wikipedia Tom Steyer graduated from Yale and was hired by Morgan Stanley in 1979, maybe a $100K salary tops . Then he attended Stanford graduate school and was hired by Goldman Sachs in 1983, maybe a $150K salary tops. Then after two years he became partner at Hellman & Friedman with democrat Robert Rubin, a private equity company and apparently simultaneously founded Farallon Capital with $15,000,000 someone gave him. At this time In 1987 he made a sales pitch to Yale to handle all their cash. Yale said, no problem. And then other Academic institutions allegedly opened accounts with him. Very strange. A kid with literally no investment experience able to convince colleges to give them their endowments to invest? Follow the money!

Not that strange... You really don't know how the investment banking game works... He was 30 year old when he got the Yale business...

And your salaries even for the 80s are a bit off for this guy. The guy takes on high risk investments and makes far more good calls than bad ones...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

'Consumer spending, which makes up roughly 70% of the economy

Thanks. So no proof of your original claim, "Sixty-percent of the economy is middle class spending"?

Only in your sociopath mind. Why don't you quit being a Trump butt wipe and start fighting for yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

Exacrtly. And Toddsterpatriot 's question "What income range measures the middle class?" is very appropriate because its changing.

Thanks to GOP past and trump's plans, the "middle class" is doomed.

By the time the trumpkins realize what they have done, it will be too late.

(Actually, I believe its already too late.)

There are two kinds of 'Trumpkins,' the rich who will prosper more, and the mentally ill.

There is an answer to help the middle class AND business:

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2017 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2017 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

Your plan would bankrupt the country; we are 20 trillion in debt and growing.

Your plan would cause such massive inflation we would end up in a depression.

Your plan would cause rental prices for apartments and houses to increase leaving many people with unaffordable housing.

Your plan would force multinational companies to give up their US interests and move everything overseas.

Your plan would eliminate any possible minimum wage job than can be replaced though automation.

Back for more?

You truly are a gluten for punishment.

All of your questions are answered in my post.

I asked no questions. I pointed out to you the results of your plan.

 

[CowboyTed]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

Is that the kind of country you'd like to see, those that pay the most get the most?

After all, as Romney put it, nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all. Income tax is what funds our social programs, our environment, supports all our bureaucracies, and yes, our military. And when you look at the books, the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected income tax. So do you really want to go down that road?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming

New York gets 'equal representation', 2 Senators, like Wyoming.
They get 27 seats in the House, while Wyoming only gets 1.

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation.

You want people who pay no taxes to get no vote? Okay.

 

[CowboyTed]

It was set up that way to keep someone like Trump out of the White House so that populist rabble rousers couldn't get elected by the majority of voters.

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming

New York gets 'equal representation', 2 Senators, like Wyoming.
They get 27 seats in the House, while Wyoming only gets 1.

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation.

You want people who pay no taxes to get no vote? Okay.

So you have no problem with New York dividing into 10 states with 2 senators each and about 4 congress each...

New York is about 40 times the size of Wyoming but gets the same amount of Senators...

It is not Representation if you are not equal...

 

[DOTR]

What KIND of name is Steyer???

American.

Sheesh.

So it isn’t a Jewish name?
I’ll make this simple for your simple mind. If it is an American derived name explain why it existed and is recorded before America existed?

 

[Reasonable]

Does he think we can vote for impeachment? He watches too much television.

Isn't he a global warming lunatic?

Another flat earther.
Too damn funny.

 

[Reasonable]

T’s jealous of the billionaires club because he knows he’s not part of it.
That’s just one of the many reasons the fraud won’t release his tax returns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it was setup so that a few states didn't have control over the entire country. New York City alone has more people there than in four of our lowest populated states. It's simply not fair that one city should have that much power.

So with the EC, everybody has representation when it comes to electing a President. It's how we setup our entire government. That's why each state has two Senators and it doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island or Texas. Two is all you get.

Shit I thought all people were created equally but you seem to like some favoured over others... What makes a New Yorker less than someone from Wyoming? Maybe New York should break up into 10 states and each state would still be 3-4 times the size of Wyoming.

Do New Yorkers pay less tax for less representation?

Never said that people in NY should have less representation, I said that others around the country should have equal representation. The idea of an EC is so that much less populated states have representation. After all, a President is not only commander of the people, he is commander of land as well. If a popular vote was the lay of the land, a President could ship all garbage and nuclear waste to a place like Wyoming and not worry about ramifications. He could not send federal financial aid to a less populated area that suffered damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires.

But because we have a EC, a President has to be concerned with all the states, not just NY, California or Texas.

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming

New York gets 'equal representation', 2 Senators, like Wyoming.
They get 27 seats in the House, while Wyoming only gets 1.

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation.

You want people who pay no taxes to get no vote? Okay.

So you have no problem with New York dividing into 10 states with 2 senators each and about 4 congress each...

New York is about 40 times the size of Wyoming but gets the same amount of Senators...

It is not Representation if you are not equal...

So you have no problem with New York dividing into 10 states with 2 senators each and about 4 congress each...

You'll have to explain the constitutional method for doing so.....

New York is about 40 times the size of Wyoming but gets the same amount of Senators...

Wyoming is nearly 80% larger than New York.

It is not Representation if you are not equal...

It is representation. You're represented by 2 Senators.

 

[DOTR]

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

Those same "few guys" set up the Senate and EC. Being much brighter than you, and less corrupt, they decreed in the Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
This follows the principle of no taxation without representation. The Senate is not a representative body and thus cannot impose taxes. It is an ancient British convention. Even when the House of Lords was at its most powerful it always deferred to the House of Commons for tax bills. "No taxation without representation" was a demand for a right protected by the British Constitution. Americans didnt invent it...they felt like they were being deprived of this basic right enjoyed by all Englishmen.
In the last 100 years It has only ever been violated once...when the Democrats wrote new taxes for Obamacare in the Senate on Nov 18, 2009. The 5th circuit court of appeals in Nov 2015 refused to hear pleadings on this issue saying it was so important that it should be heard only by the Supreme Court and could be brought only by a member of the House of Reps...in other words a GOPer with a pair. LINK
But the main point being that "0ne man one vote" is an invention of aberrant federal judges. Outside of revenue issues the US Constitution is inimical with "one man one vote". Being a federal charter it was never set up that way. States have equal votes..not people.
I suggest Federalist 58

 

[DOTR]

So explain how the people who pay most of the tax don't get 'equal representation' like Wyoming... The pay most for the Military but don't get equal say.. Same for environmental rights, why should a minority be able to set the air standards for the majority...

Actually just over 200 years ago a few guys had a problem with this very idea... What is it again, No Taxation without Representation....

Those same "few guys" set up the Senate and EC. Being much brighter than you, and less corrupt, they decreed in the Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
This follows the principle of no taxation without representation. The Senate is not a representative body and thus cannot impose taxes. It is an ancient British convention. Even when the House of Lords was at its most powerful it always deferred to the House of Commons for tax bills. "No taxation without representation" was a demand for a right protected by the British Constitution. Americans didnt invent it...they felt like they were being deprived of this basic right enjoyed by all Englishmen.
In the last 100 years It has only ever been violated once...when the Democrats wrote new taxes for Obamacare in the Senate on Nov 18, 2009. The 5th circuit court of appeals in Nov 2015 refused to hear pleadings on this issue saying it was so important that it should be heard only by the Supreme Court and could be brought only by a member of the House of Reps...in other words a GOPer with a pair. LINK
But the main point being that "0ne man one vote" is an invention of aberrant federal judges. Outside of revenue issues the US Constitution is inimical with "one man one vote". Being a federal charter it was never set up that way. States have equal votes..not people.
I suggest Federalist 58