Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Supreme set to rule on election rule

#1

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
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2022, 08:52 PM by mikesez.)

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.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#3

(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?
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

#4
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2022, 01:02 PM by mikesez. Edited 3 times in total.)

(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
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#5

(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...
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

(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?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#7

(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"
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

#8
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2022, 08:41 PM by mikesez. Edited 1 time in total.)

(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.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#9

(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.
"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(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?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!