Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
, it does not offend the Constitution.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
, it does not offend the Constitution.
Dems invented Gerrymandering but now that they're a permanent minority it's a bad thing
A document cannot be "offended." I think the word you were looking for was "violated" (which, arguably, can be construed as equally inapt, except for its acceptance in common parlance).
How many Constitutional scholars frequent this board?
The "Constitutional" arguments against Gerrymandering are very tenuous but can succeed due to compromised judges. No one's right to vote is impacted in the least, and the strategies are not always successful.
As Our Beloved President has often pointed out, "elections [results] have consequences." If the electorate elects a majority of one party in the legislature, that majority provides the opportunity to do all sorts of things, limited only by the constitution and the creativity of the majority.
there's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
bullshit martythere's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
Considering the most likely races to benefit from gerrymandering are blacks and Hispanics, and that a large majority of blacks and many Hispanics trend democratic, you really can't separate political reasons for said gerrymandering.
Another 'History' post in 'Politics'!Dems invented Gerrymandering but now that they're a permanent minority it's a bad thing
It's wrong when either party does it, but it is coming around to bite the gop's ass. And the likely result will be single payer ingrained in our society.Another 'History' post in 'Politics'!Dems invented Gerrymandering but now that they're a permanent minority it's a bad thing
bullshit martythere's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
Considering the most likely races to benefit from gerrymandering are blacks and Hispanics, and that a large majority of blacks and many Hispanics trend democratic, you really can't separate political reasons for said gerrymandering.
All About Redistricting -- Where the lines are drawn
How the GOP Is Resegregating the South
Are you intentionally being obtuse an unable to follow links? (ask a stupid question, expect one in return.)bullshit martythere's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
Considering the most likely races to benefit from gerrymandering are blacks and Hispanics, and that a large majority of blacks and many Hispanics trend democratic, you really can't separate political reasons for said gerrymandering.
All About Redistricting -- Where the lines are drawn
How the GOP Is Resegregating the South
So most black/hispanic districts DON'T vote democrat?
there's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
Considering the most likely races to benefit from gerrymandering are blacks and Hispanics, and that a large majority of blacks and many Hispanics trend democratic, you really can't separate political reasons for said gerrymandering.
I've always loved this district for Luis. D of course.Illinois 4.
Illinois's 4th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
there's no argument from me that racial gerrymandering is legal according to the current Scotus. But to deny the gop does it, is simply a lie.
Considering the most likely races to benefit from gerrymandering are blacks and Hispanics, and that a large majority of blacks and many Hispanics trend democratic, you really can't separate political reasons for said gerrymandering.