Virginia Supreme Court blocks Dem redistricting

[mudwhistle]

Had Dems not done this in Virginia, would any of the Red States done their redistricting?

Could this end up being a midterms Pubs maintaining House and Senate?

 

[marvin martian]

Top drawer!

 

[forkup]

You mean if Texas hadn't started this crap in the first place, right? The Supreme Court decision was correct in my opinion, voting had already started when the legislature intervened. But, the SC decision still leaves Dems at a 6-5 advantage through the midterms, and through the end of the decade. Republicans gained little by the SC decision.

The problem I have with the SC here, is that they went after a law voted by congress. Ratified and reratified by multiple Presidents since. And this despite it surviving multiple previous challenges too previous Supreme Courts. Using a rationale that is not consistent with the judicial philosophy they claim they use.

Their argument is bassically that the originalist interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendment is nul in void because protection against racism is no longer relevant enough to warrant protecting the minority vote.

They went against judicial precedent and the judicial philosophy they claim to adhere to.

 

[Rawley]

Remember when the idiot Islamocrat Gov of Mass threatened to redistrict in retaliation of Texas redistricting?

There is already no red district in the state ..........or all of NE for that matter, despite about 46% voting Republican..

FYI - That Red district illustrated in Maine should be blue. There is not a single Repub representative in all of New England

 

[ColonelAngus]

Commies waiting for their thought overlords to tell them what propaganda to spread.

 

[Rawley]

The problem I have with the SC here, is that they went after a law voted by congress. Ratified and reratified by multiple Presidents since. And this despite it surviving multiple previous challenges by previous Supreme Courts. Using a rationale that is not consistent with the judicial philosophy they claim they use.

Their argument is bassically that the originalist interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendment is nul in void because protection against racism is no longer relevant enough to warrant protecting the minority vote.

They went against judicial precedent and the judicial philosophy they claim to adhere to.

Plessy was precedent for 70 years. Bad law is bad law, no matter how long it stood.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Commies, RACISM IS BAD.

Whether it be against BIPOCS OR HWHITEY.

 

[Mick2]

The problem I have with the SC here, is that they went after a law voted by congress. Ratified and reratified by multiple Presidents since. And this despite it surviving multiple previous challenges too previous Supreme Courts. Using a rationale that is not consistent with the judicial philosophy they claim they use.

Their argument is bassically that the originalist interpretation of the 14th and 15th amendment is nul in void because protection against racism is no longer relevant enough to warrant protecting the minority vote.

They went against judicial precedent and the judicial philosophy they claim to adhere to.

Huh? WTF are you talking about? This VA Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with any of that babble.

 

[forkup]

Plessy was precedent for 70 years. Bad law is bad law, no matter how long it stood.

The 14th amendment has stood quite a lot longer. Since 1868 to be exact. It was specifically designed to ensure equal rights to black people from States that wanted to deny them those right. The right to representation being one of the most important ones.

The 15th has stood from 1870. Specifically codifying the right to vote. A right that Southern States still effectively denied despite of it. Prompting the Voting rights act.

The 14 and 15 amendment were responses to fundamental inequality. An inequality this SC now claims is less important than the right for represantatives of political parties to choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their represantatives.

 

[Mick2]

Remember when the idiot Islamocrat Gov of Mass threatened to redistrict in retaliation of Texas redistricting?

There is already no red district in the state ..........or all of NE for that matter, despite about 46% voting Republican..

That red district in Maine isn't red anymore either. Despite having many millions of Trump and GOP voters in New England, there is not a single GOP rep in the entire region. Dems have gerrymandered them completely out.

 

[Mick2]

The 14th amendment has stood quite a lot longer. Since 1868 to be exact. It was specifically designed to ensure equal rights to black people from States that wanted to deny them those right. The right to representation being one of the most important ones.

The 15th has stood from 1870. Specificslly codifying the right to vote. A right that Southern States still effectively denied despite of it. Prompting the Voting rights act.

The 14 and 15 amendment were responses to fundamental inequality. An inequality tjis SC now claims is less important than the right for represantatives of political parties to choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their represantatives.

Who is unable to vote that should be able to? And how are they being prevented from doing so?

 

[Rawley]

The 14th amendment has stood quite a lot longer. Since 1868 to be exact. It was specifically designed to ensure equal rights to black people from States that wanted to deny them those right. The right to representation being one of the most important ones.

The 15th has stood from 1870. Specificslly codifying the right to vote. A right that Southern States still effectively denied despite of it. Prompting the Voting rights act.

The 14 and 15 amendment were responses to fundamental inequality. An inequality tjis SC now claims is less important than the right for represantatives of political parties to choose their voters instead of the voters choosing their represantatives.

Well, if you really want to make an equal protection argument, Republicans in VA would have be been your poster boy plaintiffs.

 

[forkup]

Huh? WTF are you talking about? This VA Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with any of that babble.

Ir most certainly does.

Alito's "update" is, and I'm paraphrasing.

When judging election maps. Political parties can use race as the criterea for redrawing as long as their motive for it is partisan and not racial.

And to contest it, the burden if proof is on the plaintiff to show the motive is racial.

This turns the 14th and 15th anendment upside down

 

[Mick2]

When judging election maps. Political parties can use race as the criterea for redrawing as long as their motive for it is partisan and not racial.

And to contest it, the burden if proof is on the plaintiff to show the motive is racial.

So screaming racism without real evidence of racism is wrong? You don't say!

Hmm, you're a smart one! Lol

Besides, what does any of that have to do with the Virgina Supreme Court's ruling that is the topic of this thread? You still haven't answered.

 

[forkup]

Well, if you really want to make an equal protection argument, Republicans in VA would have be been your poster boy plaintiffs.

Nor really. 2 out of 11 seats when you represent about 20 percent of the populace is slightly less than equal representation.

Republicans want to reduce this to 1 out of 11. That is most definetly NOT equal representation.

 

[Rawley]

Nor really. 2 out of 11 seats when you represent about 20 percent of the populace is about equal representation.

Republicans want to reduce this to 1 out of 11. That is NOT equal representation.

huh? This thread is about Virginia. Your cult gerrymandered a 6-5 split of districts into a 10-1 split.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Florida now 24-4 RED instead of 20-8 RED and VA back to 6-5.

 

[forkup]

huh? This thread is about Virginia. Your cult gerrymandered a 6-5 split of districts into a 10-1 split.

I'm talking about the black population. A population that represent 20 percent.

If you want to talk about what Republicans got in the house last election cycle. The Republicans got 47.6 percent of the popular vote for the house last time around. Resulting in 5 out off 11. Doesn't seem all that unfair.

So why are Republicans treated unfairly here?

 

[Mick2]

Nor really. 2 out of 11 seats when you represent about 20 percent of the populace is slightly less than equal representation.

Republicans want to reduce this to 1 out of 11. That is most definetly NOT equal representation.

Pulling random numbers out of your ass again?

 

[Rawley]

I'm talking about the black population. A population that represent 20 percent.

If you want to talk about what Republicans got in the house last election cycle. The Republicans got 47.6 percent of the popular vote for the house last time around. Resulting in 5 out off 11. Doesn't seem all that unfair.

So why are Republicans treated unfairly here?

I think you have the wrong thread here pal.