This post explains why dems can’t win anymore.
It doesn’t take another ballot initiative. You think the right would do that? lol
They would simply ignore the ballot initiative knowing the case would take years and the rigged map is likely to be used for at least this election.
That is why they win and the left loses.
Yglesias did have a point about this. Racial gerrymandering was a problem pre civil rights because both parties had ways to bar blacks from running and so black people had no way to be represented in the system. So racial gerrymandering was a way to give minorities representation.
That fear has subsided now that Democrats (and I guess in theory Republicans) don’t really have a problem with running or electing black people.
Of course it’s a related problem of what just normal gerrymandering does, which is what you say.
https://www.axios.com/2024/05/23/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-racial-segregation
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling on Thursday, suggesting the court overreached its authority in the landmark decision that banned separating schoolchildren by race.
this fucking guy
Play with that and I think the court could get expanded.
Those guys write cool I hope that’s real
They could actually release this on Scotus letterhead and there would be zero repercussions.
It’s amazing to me that there aren’t like 100,000 people protesting outside of the SC building
Is it because people aren’t organized enough? Too many people are okay with the corruption? Is it fear? Or just being too goddamn apathetic?
I don’t know how to organize a mass protest, but I’d definitely show up to one
I think it’s mostly that people don’t really understand this
Can someone explain to me like I’m a child the insane idea that gerrymandering is ok as long as it’s partisan? I’ve listened to dozens of podcasts on the topic and never had any make a case why this idea makes sense logically or historically. It has to be top three dumbest US political ideas and that is saying something.
Dems are in on it in the sense they want the same outcome. It is the only explanation you have to eventually come to that explains their action (or inaction).
Partisanship isn’t a suspect classification.
Gerrymandering based on a suspect classification, such as race, is a matter of equal protection and is subject to the judicial standard of strict scrutiny. Partisan gerrymandering need only satisfy a rational basis review, where you only need to be able to come with a hypothetical legitimate government interest, even if the actual intent is different and all the facts don’t support doing it that way.
Bad laws that lead to bad outcomes are not inherently unconstitutional.
All this does is show why the religious adherence to the constitution is the number one stupid US political idea.
How does it show that?
You answered your own question with the last sentence.
Because the court is all Calvinball.
The judges have their conclusions and go back and find reasoning to make their decisions.
It’s like religious nuts that point to the Bible for a reason they are against gay marriage, while conveniently ignoring all the parts of the Bible that talk about not being greedy and to love immigrants.
I get all that. What I am asking is when you are sitting in a law seminar what is the reason given for this logic? Obviously they are not teaching it’s all bullshit. What is the “legal logic” they pretend is real when arguing gerrymandering is fine if only partisan.
That seems very untrue given how many people do understand this (like yourself) but do nothing about it
might makes right