This would put a stop to a lot of election shenanigans and stopping liberal Judges/Lawyers from creating ridiculously unfair districts.
SCOTUS Seems Likely to Take Up Case That Could Recognize States’ Power to Regulate Elections.
“Four conservative Supreme Court justices have gone on record expressing an interest in ruling on the doctrine and three justices said it applied in the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/scotus-see...lsuccess=1
In 2019, Alito signed on to an opinion saying that state Supreme courts were the proper venue for claims that unfair districts were violating the right of citizens to freely associate.
North Carolina and Pennsylania took him up on that and their Supreme courts ruled that their legislatures had created unfair districts.
Now Alito is saying they shouldn't have done that, but no one in the media is calling him for for contradicting himself.
(06-20-2022, 07:49 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]This would put a stop to a lot of election shenanigans and stopping liberal Judges/Lawyers from creating ridiculously unfair districts.
SCOTUS Seems Likely to Take Up Case That Could Recognize States’ Power to Regulate Elections.
“Four conservative Supreme Court justices have gone on record expressing an interest in ruling on the doctrine and three justices said it applied in the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/scotus-see...lsuccess=1
The Founders said that their intent was to make sure there was always a check and balance on the power of any part of government.
A Legislature should not be allowed to draw its own districts any more than I should be allowed to draw my own property lines.
(06-20-2022, 08:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In 2019, Alito signed on to an opinion saying that state Supreme courts were the proper venue for claims that unfair districts were violating the right of citizens to freely associate.
North Carolina and Pennsylania took him up on that and their Supreme courts ruled that their legislatures had created unfair districts.
Now Alito is saying they shouldn't have done that, but no one in the media is calling him for for contradicting himself.
(06-20-2022, 07:49 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]This would put a stop to a lot of election shenanigans and stopping liberal Judges/Lawyers from creating ridiculously unfair districts.
SCOTUS Seems Likely to Take Up Case That Could Recognize States’ Power to Regulate Elections.
“Four conservative Supreme Court justices have gone on record expressing an interest in ruling on the doctrine and three justices said it applied in the Bush v. Gore case that resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/scotus-see...lsuccess=1
The Founders said that their intent was to make sure there was always a check and balance on the power of any part of government.
A Legislature should not be allowed to draw its own districts any more than I should be allowed to draw my own property lines.
So says the resident government do boy. Better elected officials who have to answer to the people, then unelected political advocates. And besides, it was the intent of the framers that this be done locally w/o federal interference. Did you actually read the article?
(06-21-2022, 08:35 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-20-2022, 08:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In 2019, Alito signed on to an opinion saying that state Supreme courts were the proper venue for claims that unfair districts were violating the right of citizens to freely associate.
North Carolina and Pennsylania took him up on that and their Supreme courts ruled that their legislatures had created unfair districts.
Now Alito is saying they shouldn't have done that, but no one in the media is calling him for for contradicting himself.
The Founders said that their intent was to make sure there was always a check and balance on the power of any part of government.
A Legislature should not be allowed to draw its own districts any more than I should be allowed to draw my own property lines.
So says the resident government do boy. Better elected officials who have to answer to the people, then unelected political advocates. And besides, it was the intent of the framers that this be done locally w/o federal interference. Did you actually read the article?
Elected officials answer to the people either way. There are still elections at the district level where someone wins and someone loses. And state Supreme courts *are* local.
This image explains the problem, if you actually want to understand.
https://images.app.goo.gl/vcDcGj79rcVPGxUm7
(06-21-2022, 10:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 08:35 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]So says the resident government do boy. Better elected officials who have to answer to the people, then unelected political advocates. And besides, it was the intent of the framers that this be done locally w/o federal interference. Did you actually read the article?
Elected officials answer to the people either way. There are still elections at the district level where someone wins and someone loses. And state Supreme courts *are* local.
This image explains the problem, if you actually want to underatand.
https://images.app.goo.gl/vcDcGj79rcVPGxUm7
You missed my point completely, as usual.. WOOOSH!! over his head...
(06-21-2022, 11:19 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 10:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Elected officials answer to the people either way. There are still elections at the district level where someone wins and someone loses. And state Supreme courts *are* local.
This image explains the problem, if you actually want to underatand.
https://images.app.goo.gl/vcDcGj79rcVPGxUm7
You missed my point completely, as usual.. WOOOSH!! over his head...
I addressed the points you actually made. What am I missing?
(06-21-2022, 11:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 11:19 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]You missed my point completely, as usual.. WOOOSH!! over his head...
I addressed the points you actually made. What am I missing?
The Supreme Court themselves brought up the question on whether "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials"
(06-21-2022, 04:38 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 11:53 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I addressed the points you actually made. What am I missing?
The Supreme Court themselves brought up the question on whether "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials"
When a point or a statement is fundamentally unserious, I usually laugh it off rather than argue with it.
But you're actually serious! Surprising.
Anyhow, yes, Virginia, they all believe that "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials." Every single one of them. Ever. There has never been even one post-independence Supreme Court Judge that didn't believe that. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and it was decided unanimously. No judge who ever made it to that level since has ever questioned the principle of judicial review. They would never say otherwise. You made that quote up.
Judges all want to review and overrule things, they just disagree about which things.
(06-21-2022, 08:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 04:38 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]The Supreme Court themselves brought up the question on whether "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials"
When a point or a statement is fundamentally unserious, I usually laugh it off rather than argue with it.
But you're actually serious! Surprising.
Anyhow, yes, Virginia, they all believe that "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials." Every single one of them. Ever. There has never been even one post-independence Supreme Court Judge that didn't believe that. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and it was decided unanimously. No judge who ever made it to that level since has ever questioned the principle of judicial review. They would never say otherwise. You made that quote up.
Judges all want to review and overrule things, they just disagree about which things.
I made the quote up? That’s what you’re going with? wow. Your whole defense is based off of an easily verifiable quote?
Whatever dude, you keep doing, you.
(06-22-2022, 05:11 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2022, 08:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When a point or a statement is fundamentally unserious, I usually laugh it off rather than argue with it.
But you're actually serious! Surprising.
Anyhow, yes, Virginia, they all believe that "unelected judges should police the partisan actions of elected officials." Every single one of them. Ever. There has never been even one post-independence Supreme Court Judge that didn't believe that. Marbury v Madison established judicial review and it was decided unanimously. No judge who ever made it to that level since has ever questioned the principle of judicial review. They would never say otherwise. You made that quote up.
Judges all want to review and overrule things, they just disagree about which things.
I made the quote up? That’s what you’re going with? wow. Your whole defense is based off of an easily verifiable quote?
Whatever dude, you keep doing, you.
OK. Where did the quote come from? Which judge wrote that?