Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?The OP's logic is flawed. The system the SCOTUS upheld is one of an independent panel comprised of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to draw up districts, removing this activity from the purview of the legislature. Assuming that the Independent will always fall in with the Dems is a false hope.
But who gets to decide who is "independent' enoughI said it yesterdayIn a bad week for the GOP, the Supreme Court may well have delivered an A-Bomb to the Republican party.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Arizona congressional districts drawn by an independent commission and rejected a constitutional challenge from Repulicans.
The 5-4 outcome preserves efforts in 13 states to limit partisan influence in redistricting. Most notably, California uses an independent commission to draw electoral boundaries for its largest-in-the-nation congressional delegation.
--------
Basically, it blows apart the idea that those who control the State Legislatures can draw whatever crazy congressional districts they want.
This is a Big Fucking Deal to quote the Vice President.
So now the world "legislature" doesn't mean anything either.
Great.
SCOTUS has neutered Congress, in that they have no Power of the Purse when it comes to ACA
State governments have no say whether or not to accept subsidies
States have no say as to what the legal definition of Marriage is, despite the fact that most states arrived at that distinction by a 60/40 decision of its citizenry
Our President, and his pen, can rewrite laws on a whim
I'm glad that the recipients of all their new-found "freedom" are rejoicing
I'm weeping at the dismantling of our separation of powers
The AZ ruling puts the power to draw congressional lines into the hands of an independent commission if the citizens of a State wish to establish one.
I certainly wish it would have stipulated that each state set one up and bar the state legislatures from drawing the lines since they obviously do so only to preserve their own power.
The gop brought the suit...You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?The OP's logic is flawed. The system the SCOTUS upheld is one of an independent panel comprised of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to draw up districts, removing this activity from the purview of the legislature. Assuming that the Independent will always fall in with the Dems is a false hope.
There is nothing in my post that suggests a criticism of having an independent commission determine districts. The voters approved it; so be it. It was their choice.
I'm just pointing out the illogic of CC's inane crowing that it's a defeat for the GOP. It's not. It's a defeat for the legislature, whose majority may change in subsequent elections.
Marty doesnt need to. He assumed he knew it all about 10 years ago and stopped trying to keep up on current events.The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution which "says the legislatures figure it out".The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
That's funny coming from you, and sad at the same time.
You've proven in this thread you don't know what the constitution says - how would you know if 5 judges were changing it (they aren't)Marty doesnt need to. He assumed he knew it all about 10 years ago and stopped trying to keep up on current events.The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
All I know is to change the constitution you need to use the amendment process, not get 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you, and THAT is what is happening now.
AGAINST the commission.The gop brought the suit...You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?The OP's logic is flawed. The system the SCOTUS upheld is one of an independent panel comprised of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to draw up districts, removing this activity from the purview of the legislature. Assuming that the Independent will always fall in with the Dems is a false hope.
There is nothing in my post that suggests a criticism of having an independent commission determine districts. The voters approved it; so be it. It was their choice.
I'm just pointing out the illogic of CC's inane crowing that it's a defeat for the GOP. It's not. It's a defeat for the legislature, whose majority may change in subsequent elections.
The gop brought the suit...You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?The OP's logic is flawed. The system the SCOTUS upheld is one of an independent panel comprised of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to draw up districts, removing this activity from the purview of the legislature. Assuming that the Independent will always fall in with the Dems is a false hope.
There is nothing in my post that suggests a criticism of having an independent commission determine districts. The voters approved it; so be it. It was their choice.
I'm just pointing out the illogic of CC's inane crowing that it's a defeat for the GOP. It's not. It's a defeat for the legislature, whose majority may change in subsequent elections.
AGAINST the commission.
Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution which "says the legislatures figure it out".The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
That's funny coming from you, and sad at the same time.
You've done gone and stepped in it now, skippy.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Four of the five members of the IRC are chosen by the highest ranking officer and minority leader of each chamber of the legislature from a list of ten candidates pre-selected by Arizona’s Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. The four appointed members themselves then choose the fifth member from the pre-selected nomination pool to serve as chair. After appointment, the members of the IRC can only be removed by the Governor of Arizona, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office
Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution which "says the legislatures figure it out".The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
That's funny coming from you, and sad at the same time.
You've done gone and stepped in it now, skippy.
Section 4, clause 1.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
In a majority opinion, a three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Arizona held that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause refers to the entire lawmaking process of the state; that Prop. 106 does not violate the Elections Clause; and that shifting the authority to prescribe congressional districts away from the Legislature and vesting it in the IRC does not violate the Elections Clause.
You've proven in this thread you don't know what the constitution says - how would you know if 5 judges were changing it (they aren't)Marty doesnt need to. He assumed he knew it all about 10 years ago and stopped trying to keep up on current events.The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
All I know is to change the constitution you need to use the amendment process, not get 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you, and THAT is what is happening now.
Go ahead and quote the part of the Constitution which "says the legislatures figure it out".The constitution says the legislatures figure it out,
Statements like this just serve to confirm you tards have never actually read the Constitution.
That's funny coming from you, and sad at the same time.
You've done gone and stepped in it now, skippy.
Section 4, clause 1.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co.../Arizona-Jurisdictional-Statement-FILED-1.pdf
In a majority opinion, a three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Arizona held that the term “Legislature” in the Elections Clause refers to the entire lawmaking process of the state; that Prop. 106 does not violate the Elections Clause; and that shifting the authority to prescribe congressional districts away from the Legislature and vesting it in the IRC does not violate the Elections Clause.
That decision was upheld.
Four of the five members of the IRC are chosen by the highest ranking officer and minority leader of each chamber of the legislature from a list of ten candidates pre-selected by Arizona’s Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. The four appointed members themselves then choose the fifth member from the pre-selected nomination pool to serve as chair. After appointment, the members of the IRC can only be removed by the Governor of Arizona, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co.../Arizona-Jurisdictional-Statement-FILED-1.pdf
In a bad week for the GOP, the Supreme Court may well have delivered an A-Bomb to the Republican party.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Arizona congressional districts drawn by an independent commission and rejected a constitutional challenge from Repulicans.
The 5-4 outcome preserves efforts in 13 states to limit partisan influence in redistricting. Most notably, California uses an independent commission to draw electoral boundaries for its largest-in-the-nation congressional delegation.
--------
Basically, it blows apart the idea that those who control the State Legislatures can draw whatever crazy congressional districts they want.
This is a Big Fucking Deal to quote the Vice President.
You're right, the republican controlled legislature brought it, and likely only because they thought they could get more republican seats without the commission than with it.The gop brought the suit...You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?The OP's logic is flawed. The system the SCOTUS upheld is one of an independent panel comprised of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and 1 Independent to draw up districts, removing this activity from the purview of the legislature. Assuming that the Independent will always fall in with the Dems is a false hope.
There is nothing in my post that suggests a criticism of having an independent commission determine districts. The voters approved it; so be it. It was their choice.
I'm just pointing out the illogic of CC's inane crowing that it's a defeat for the GOP. It's not. It's a defeat for the legislature, whose majority may change in subsequent elections.
AGAINST the commission.
The GOP as a party didn't bring the suit; thhe Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature did. The germane grouping here is the Arizona Legislature. This is a contest between a government body and an independent commission.
In a bad week for the GOP, the Supreme Court may well have delivered an A-Bomb to the Republican party.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Arizona congressional districts drawn by an independent commission and rejected a constitutional challenge from Repulicans.
The 5-4 outcome preserves efforts in 13 states to limit partisan influence in redistricting. Most notably, California uses an independent commission to draw electoral boundaries for its largest-in-the-nation congressional delegation.
--------
Basically, it blows apart the idea that those who control the State Legislatures can draw whatever crazy congressional districts they want.
This is a Big Fucking Deal to quote the Vice President.
Finally some good news on this front. No political party should be able to gerrymander districts. NO party.
Gerrymandering reduces the effectiveness of individual votes and needs to be eliminated. And yes both parties have been guilty of this in the past. Republicans have taken it to whole new levels the past few years. Enough.
Stop both parties from doing this.
You're right, the republican controlled legislature brought it, and likely only because they thought they could get more republican seats without the commission than with it.The gop brought the suit...You don't think this is a better system than the clearly partisan system of allowing the state legislature to draw the dustricts as they please?
There is nothing in my post that suggests a criticism of having an independent commission determine districts. The voters approved it; so be it. It was their choice.
I'm just pointing out the illogic of CC's inane crowing that it's a defeat for the GOP. It's not. It's a defeat for the legislature, whose majority may change in subsequent elections.
AGAINST the commission.
The GOP as a party didn't bring the suit; thhe Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature did. The germane grouping here is the Arizona Legislature. This is a contest between a government body and an independent commission.
In the future it could have been a democratic legislature bringing the same suit, making the decision more of a loss for partisans
