Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Supreme Court: "It is a corrupt court"

[Anathema]

I’m sorry but this whole gerrymandering thing is a joke so far as I’m concerned. ANY district map drawn by people is going to be slanted on one way or another. We have more than suitable and capable technologies to draw these maps without any discriminatory opportunity at all. We just choose not to use them because it might take power away from the politicians.

 

[postman]

He only blocked Garland. And it was magnificant.

And he should have blocked Barrett under the same "rule"

In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a federal judge considered a moderate, to fill the vacancy. At the time, Senate Republicans held a 54–46 majority, and Mitch McConnell, then Senate Majority Leader, refused to hold hearings or vote on Garland’s nomination

McConnell publicly said the decision was to defer the Supreme Court vacancy to the next president, citing the upcoming 2016 election Newsweek. He argued that the Senate should not act during an election year, framing it as a matter of political timing rather than a constitutional issue.


On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland (Election 33 weeks away)

President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020 (Election 5 weeks away)

 

[postman]

I’m sorry but this whole gerrymandering thing is a joke so far as I’m concerned. ANY district map drawn by people is going to be slanted on one way or another. We have more than suitable and capable technologies to draw these maps without any discriminatory opportunity at all. We just choose not to use them because it might take power away from the politicians.

Actually some states have changed to an impartial redistricting committee, instead of having them drawn by a partisan legislature. The US Congress could make that the law for all federal districts, under their article 1 powers.

 

[Anathema]

Actually some states have changed to an impartial redistricting committee, instead of having them drawn by a partisan legislature. The US Congress could make that the law for all federal districts, under their article 1 powers.

I don’t want people involved in it at all. I’m trying to make it as truly non-partisan as possible. Literally treating it like a math problem and nothing else.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Virginia failed gerrymander was ruled unconstitutional by the Virginia court and not by SCOTUS.

They both followed the law, therefore both have to go.

 

[Moonglow]

It's ironic how throughout the 20th century when we saw radical decisions come out of SCOTUS that benefited the left's agenda Democrats never called the court corrupt or illegitimate (nor did the Republicans). Now that we have a court that rules the closest to the original intent of the Constitution in my lifetime it's suddenly corrupt and needs reformed. This is the same kind of rhetoric and proposed actions we see from far-left socialist regimes throughout the world. They get into power and install their own corrupt thugs to destroy the judicial and constitutional institutions to give them everything they want that they can't win through legitimate means.

Cory Booker calls Supreme Court ‘profoundly hypocritical’ after voting rights ruling: Full interview

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) joins Meet the Press after the U.S. Supreme Court imposed new limits on the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a new Democratic-leaning congressional map approved by voters.

www.nbcnews.com

They damn sure are not conservatives.

 

[Moonglow]

Demafasict like Booker are attacking our democratic institutions amd are a clear and present danger to the republic

So is Trump, but you say nothing..I wonder why? Do you agree with the president using no bidding on federal projects, where the president can give his buddies the job with no bidding?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Booker is just annoying. He has aspirations but he's not all that

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, stare decisis is a concept rooted in the US Constitution, where under Article 3,

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In placing all the judicial power into a single court, and establishing all courts to be inferior to that court, means that all the lower courts have to obey the decisions of the one constitutional court. And it would throw those courts into a tailspin if the one Constitutional court kept changing it's interpretation of the constitution and the laws of the US, with every change of the court.

So stare decisis is an important part of law, and like the rights granted by the Constitution itself, is not absolute. As everything in the bill of rights is not absolute. And even the clear text is subject to a "compelling government interest".

In the case of the court, the "compelling government interest" would include where a superior judgement is rendered.
Where Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was decided by the judgement of 7 jurists
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) was decided by the superior judgement of 9 jurists.

Compare to the Radical Roberts court, who ignored stare decisis in
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) by the judgement of 6 jurists
To overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) which was on the judgement of 7 jurists.

Where does the Constitution mention the size of the majority in overturning previous decisions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And he should have blocked Barrett under the same "rule"

In 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a federal judge considered a moderate, to fill the vacancy. At the time, Senate Republicans held a 54–46 majority, and Mitch McConnell, then Senate Majority Leader, refused to hold hearings or vote on Garland’s nomination

McConnell publicly said the decision was to defer the Supreme Court vacancy to the next president, citing the upcoming 2016 election Newsweek. He argued that the Senate should not act during an election year, framing it as a matter of political timing rather than a constitutional issue.


On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland (Election 33 weeks away)

President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020 (Election 5 weeks away)

The difference between a newly elected Republican Senate considering a Democrat nominee and a Republican Senate considering a Republican nominee is the point.

Not every nominee gets a vote in the Senate.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Kind of.
If democrats had their way the supreme court justices would be voted in by the people, every 6 years, like senators.

So we'd have idiots in the Supreme Court like we have idiots in the Senate? Great solution...(eye roll) How about this instead? Vote in people who will legislate your agenda. If you can't get them elected...it means a majority of Americans don't agree with you. That's life in a democracy! You don't get to change the referees when they called fouls on you for not playing by the rules!

 

[struth]

So is Trump, but you say nothing..I wonder why? Do you agree with the president using no bidding on federal projects, where the president can give his buddies the job with no bidding?

No no he’s not

I have no issue if he were so long as it’s under FAR which lays out when it can happen

 

[Moonglow]

No no he’s not

I have no issue if he were so long as it’s under FAR which lays out when it can happen

The law says you are wrong.

Federal no-bid contracts are not inherently illegal, but they are generally discouraged and heavily regulated by law. While competition is mandated, exceptions allow "sole-source" or no-bid contracts under specific, justified circumstances, such as when only one supplier can meet the requirement or in urgent, national security scenarios. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

So we'd have idiots in the Supreme Court like we have idiots in the Senate? Great solution...(eye roll) How about this instead? Vote in people who will legislate your agenda.

"LEGISLATE" an AGENDA.
How about legislating the fuking LAW?

If you can't get them elected...it means a majority of Americans don't agree with you. That's life in a democracy! You don't get to change the referees when they called fouls on you for not playing by the rules!

BS.

That's what you lying, cheating retards did.

Trump on Texas redistricting: 'We are entitled to 5 more seats'​

Politico
https://www.politico.com › news › 2025/08/05 › trump...




Aug 5, 2025 — Texas Republicans last week unveiled a new congressional map of the state that, if passed by the state's legislature.

“We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas,” Trump told CNBC’s Squawk Box. “I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.”