Supreme Court Stays Redistricting in OH and MI

[Manonthestreet]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

 

[Pogo]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

Why would we do that?

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision.

That's EXACTLY the problem. The "what's in it for me" attitude. Here Fox, guard this henhouse.

I mean --------- DUH.

Meanwhile ----- got a more credible source than "the Epoch Times"?

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

Why would we do that?

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision.

That's EXACTLY the problem. The "what's in it for me" attitude. Here Fox, guard this henhouse.

I mean --------- DUH.

Meanwhile ----- got a more credible source than "the Epoch Times"?

Libs just tol precedent is everything when it comes to abortion...…. Funny how these suits are always filed by loser libs trying to circumvent the lawful process with court imposed mandates.

 

[Pogo]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

Why would we do that?

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision.

That's EXACTLY the problem. The "what's in it for me" attitude. Here Fox, guard this henhouse.

I mean --------- DUH.

Meanwhile ----- got a more credible source than "the Epoch Times"?

Libs just tol precedent is everything when it comes to abortion...…. Funny how these suits are always filed by loser libs trying to circumvent the lawful process with court imposed mandates.

Care to tell us what language that is? I'll run it through Google Translate.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Facts always inconvenient for libs

 

[Pogo]

Facts always inconvenient for libs

Whatever you posted there is not coherent in the English language. That's a fact.

"Tol" is not a word; "abortion" isn't part of the story; nor is a "suit"; and no part of it addresses the quoted post in any way whatsoever.

The post makes no sense in any language. It is meaningless. Learn to write.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Facts always inconvenient for libs

Whatever you posted there is not coherent in the English language. That's a fact.

"Tol" is not a word; "abortion" isn't part of the story; nor is a "suit"; and no part of it addresses the quoted post in any way whatsoever.

The post makes no sense in any language. It is meaningless. Learn to write.

Your knowledge of recent Dem party bleating is shocking.... precedent only matters and is sacred when they want it to be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me be specific for you liberal dumb ass..... When ever anyone talks about abortion your side DEMANDS that previous precedent applies in ALL cases and that no change to that precedent can be allowed. Now suddenly you think precedent is unimportant. Hypocrite much?

 

[Pogo]

Let me be specific for you liberal dumb ass..... When ever anyone talks about abortion your side DEMANDS that previous precedent applies in ALL cases and that no change to that precedent can be allowed. Now suddenly you think precedent is unimportant. Hypocrite much?

Who are you even posting to?

There is NOTHING --- ZERO --- in this thread about "abortion". Anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me be specific for you liberal dumb ass..... When ever anyone talks about abortion your side DEMANDS that previous precedent applies in ALL cases and that no change to that precedent can be allowed. Now suddenly you think precedent is unimportant. Hypocrite much?

Who are you even posting to?

There is NOTHING --- ZERO --- in this thread about "abortion". Anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

Abortion is the crux of your argument. On one hand YOU INSIST on precedent in regards abortion on the other you demand precedent be ignored in this case, even a 5 year old can understand what we are talking about.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

Why does the left object anyways? If they have a good message it wouldn't matter


.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

To what "precedent" do you refer? A Justice issued a Stay. That sets no precedent..

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

To what "precedent" do you refer? A Justice issued a Stay. That sets no precedent..

1st paragraph. Supremes never overturning ....

 

[joaquinmiller]

The Supreme Court has never struck down an entire state map for partisan gerrymandering.

Traditionally, conservative members of the Supreme Court tend to favor treating redistricting as a political question that should be left to lawmakers who have been elected to make this kind of decision. Liberal justices tend to be more open to intervening in the map-drawing process to correct perceived injustices. Supreme Court Halts Judge-Ordered Redistricting in Ohio, Michigan
Let us hope this precedent holds.....

To what "precedent" do you refer? A Justice issued a Stay. That sets no precedent..

1st paragraph. Supremes never overturning ....

That's not establishing a precedent. There are a lot of things the Supreme Court has never done. Precedent requires a ruling/decision.

 

[Manonthestreet]

They have decided ......against several of these.

 

[joaquinmiller]

They have decided ......against several of these.

Read it and weep.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/redist...supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx

 

[Pogo]

Let me be specific for you liberal dumb ass..... When ever anyone talks about abortion your side DEMANDS that previous precedent applies in ALL cases and that no change to that precedent can be allowed. Now suddenly you think precedent is unimportant. Hypocrite much?

Who are you even posting to?

There is NOTHING --- ZERO --- in this thread about "abortion". Anywhere.

Prove me wrong.

Abortion is the crux of your argument. On one hand YOU INSIST on precedent in regards abortion on the other you demand precedent be ignored in this case, even a 5 year old can understand what we are talking about.

I've never even brought up "abortion" DUMBASS. Not in this thread, not in any thread. Ever.

NOR did I post anything about any "precedent". That too was the inebriated OP and his word salad with no meaning.

Go ahead --- look up and fucking READ it.

Don't sit here and post a load of shit. The OP brought both of these irrelevant terms up in an incoherent drunk post and never explained himself. Fuck him and fuck you, and go learn how to READ.