Redistricting Wars

[HisArpy]

Again, calling someone dumb when they were correct is too damn funny. How do you make money, ? Uber?

Lol. Only in your fantasy world could anyone view what you posted as "correct."

But you do you. Eventually someone (not me) might take pity on you and give you that internet participation award you're so desperately seeking.

 

[Rotadom]

Lol. Only in your fantasy world could anyone view what you posted as "correct."

But you do you. Eventually someone (not me) might take pity on you and give you that internet participation award you're so desperately seeking.

I was on the right side of this legal decision.

You were on the wrong side.

It's that simple, .

 

[HisArpy]

I was on the right side of this legal decision.

You were on the wrong side.

It's that simple, .

YOU certainly think so. Of course you would since you know nothing and spew even less than that.

 

[Rotadom]

YOU certainly think so. Of course you would since you know nothing and spew even less than that.

The LAW agrees with ME, .

Get off the struggle bus.

 

[HisArpy]

The LAW agrees with ME, .

Get off the struggle bus.

Not my fault you're stupider than the usual run of the mill liberal, because the law certainly doesn't agree with you. In fact what's going on is that YOU agree with the judges, who might be wrong.

BTW, I thought this was interesting. Especially the last part about the SCOTUS.

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/...as-redistricting-caseand-its-a-doozy-n2196359

 

[MajorRewrite]

In fact what's going on is that YOU agree with the judges, who might be wrong.

You’re arguing that he’s wrong because he agrees with the decision of judges who “might” be wrong.

Stable genius.

 

[Rotadom]

You’re arguing that he’s wrong because he agrees with the decision of judges who “might” be wrong.

Stable genius.

That . What a maroon. He will debase himself to protect his fragile ego.

 

[Rotadom]

In fact what's going on is that YOU agree with the judges

"By winning, the Democrats are actually losing."

- Stable genius, Laura Ingraham

 

[RobDownSouth]

And yet, Texas passed a law which, under State's Rights, should have been upheld because the Constitution leaves elections and how they're run/apportioned/etc. to the States.

Except a Federal judge decided that he was the sole arbiter of district mapping in Texas. Given how the Fed courts are so virulently anti-Trump, it was an expected decision. That the appellate courts sided with the District Court wasn't expected, although in hindsight it should have been.

I also expect that the 9th circuit will uphold California's redistricting map, despite the open discussion by the legislature and Newsom on how Prop 50 will enhance the Latino vote while diminishing the white Republican vote.

Pivoting to "States Rights" in the Age of Trump? How.....retro.

Might be a bit before your time, but states in the Deep South used to hold "white primaries", which were declared unconstitutional by Federal courts.

WHAR WAS STATES RIGHTS BACK THEN?

"States Rights" is a particularly stoopid hill to die on, you might recall the State of Texas crafted a perfectly cromulent bit of legislation to lower voting turnout, and then the Trump DOJ ham-handedly interfered with Texas sovreignity by demanding the "Nigra Districts" be completely eradicated and didn't even care about a paper trail documenting their unconstitutional behavior.


......but you had nothing to say about that now, did you?

Keep flailing....keep failing.

 

[HisArpy]

You’re arguing that he’s wrong because he agrees with the decision of judges who “might” be wrong.

Stable genius.

Based on what we've seen from the numerous anti-Trump decisions, as well as what I've researched on the law in this regard, the appellate panel could be reversed by the SCOTUS on the law.

Because the law is NOT what the panel says.

So, do you agree with the law, or the panel's decision?

I stand with the law until the SCOTUS changes the interpretation of it.

 

[HisArpy]

Pivoting to "States Rights" in the Age of Trump? How.....retro.

Might be a bit before your time, but states in the Deep South used to hold "white primaries", which were declared unconstitutional by Federal courts.

WHAR WAS STATES RIGHTS BACK THEN?

"States Rights" is a particularly stoopid hill to die on, you might recall the State of Texas crafted a perfectly cromulent bit of legislation to lower voting turnout, and then the Trump DOJ ham-handedly interfered with Texas sovreignity by demanding the "Nigra Districts" be completely eradicated and didn't even care about a paper trail documenting their unconstitutional behavior.


......but you had nothing to say about that now, did you?

Keep flailing....keep failing.

States Rights are where we're at. One need only look at Dobbs to see this.

But, given that you can barely read, no one expects a logical cohesive statement out of you that doesn't deflect from the issue or delves deep into quotes from Lit searches taken out of context.

 

[RobDownSouth]

States Rights are where we're at. One need only look at Dobbs to see this.

But, given that you can barely read, no one expects a logical cohesive statement out of you that doesn't deflect from the issue or delves deep into quotes from Lit searches taken out of context.

Whine harder, you Aspy nugget.

I noticed you posted that dyspeptic rant from the dissenting judge in the Texas case....the geriatric fossil who is one of the oldest non-senior judges in Murica, having been appointed by Reagan. He was pissy because he couldn't take a week off to bury yet another one of his contemporaries. That judge is older than Trump and a relic.

 

[YDB95]

I'll be very surprised if the Coathanger Five don't save the day for Trump as usual. But the very fact that they now have to do that is something of a moral victory anyway.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Because the law is NOT what the panel says.

Is that the official position of the Fake Lawyers Association?

 

[Vetteman]

States Rights are where we're at. One need only look at Dobbs to see this.

But, given that you can barely read, no one expects a logical cohesive statement out of you that doesn't deflect from the issue or delves deep into quotes from Lit searches taken out of context.

They are a bunch of liberal dipshits. Think about it if they fell for the Epstein hoax their dumbasses will believe anything.

 

[HisArpy]

I'll be very surprised if the Coathanger Five don't save the day for Trump as usual. But the very fact that they now have to do that is something of a moral victory anyway.

It's a moral victory that the US Supreme Court has to tell the lower courts they fucked up once again?

If that's a "moral" anything, I'd like to know what you think a travesty is.

 

[Bray123]

They are a bunch of liberal dipshits. Think about it if they fell for the Epstein hoax their dumbasses will believe anything.

Trump, 'A vote to release the files is a hostile act towards me.'

 

[HisArpy]

Whine harder, you Aspy nugget.

I noticed you posted that dyspeptic rant from the dissenting judge in the Texas case....the geriatric fossil who is one of the oldest non-senior judges in Murica, having been appointed by Reagan. He was pissy because he couldn't take a week off to bury yet another one of his contemporaries. That judge is older than Trump and a relic.

I see that you graduated from the school of total bullshit and use your hard won edification from that lofty compost pile to denounce and decry that which you don't like as if that somehow makes you look better than the muck raking you use instead of logic/reason.

In the end it doesn't matter if the judge is old and petrified, his dissent is on point and the only real disagreement you have with it is that it shreds the majority opinion for what it is; judicial activism masquerading as law.

I await the end game where the SCOTUS once again reverses the lower court.

 

[MajorRewrite]

denounce and decry that which you don't like as if that somehow makes you look better than the muck raking you use instead of logic/reason

You’re denouncing and decrying the judges’ decision which you don’t like as if that somehow makes you look better than the muckraking you use instead of logic/reason.

 

[HisArpy]

You’re denouncing and decrying the judges’ decision which you don’t like as if that somehow makes you look better than the muckraking you use instead of logic/reason.

OMG, are you fucking serious?

I've looked at the applicable law and I've read both the majority opinion and the dissent. It's like 400 pages total between them.

The dissent outlines perfectly what happened, why it happened, and why the majority opinion is wrong on both the law and the procedures used to block (ie; attempt to censor) the dissent. I happen to agree with it and was surprised at the majority's reasoning (or lack thereof) over the 160 pages of the opinion.

What's funny is that you automatically dismiss the dissent without realizing that it was written by (I believe) the presiding justice of the circuit. Someone who has been on the bench for almost 40 years and is well versed in both appellate procedure AND the law.

But you think your unlearned personal belief is more knowledgeable than his. Worse, you don't think that because you care about the issue. No, you're trying to foist that belief off on everyone, including yourself, on the basis that someone on the innerdweebs said something that offended you once so now you have to "show them" something or other. You're not really sure what you're showing them, or how you're going to do it, but you're all in on the idea so you post bullshit like the above.

You need to get a life and grow the fuck up. Meanwhile I'll await the SCOTUS decision and/or the en banc opinion reversing the decision(s).

 

[MajorRewrite]

But you think your unlearned personal belief is more knowledgeable than his.

But you think your unlearned personal belief is more knowledgeable than the two judges that decided the case.

Fake lawyer MAGA sheep are the funniest.

 

[RobDownSouth]

OMG, are you fucking serious?
I've looked at the applicable law and I've read both the majority opinion and the dissent. It's like 400 pages total between them.
The dissent outlines perfectly what happened, why it happened, and why the majority opinion is wrong on both the law and the procedures used to block (ie; attempt to censor) the dissent. I happen to agree with it and was surprised at the majority's reasoning (or lack thereof) over the 160 pages of the opinion.
What's funny is that you automatically dismiss the dissent without realizing that it was written by (I believe) the presiding justice of the circuit. Someone who has been on the bench for almost 40 years and is well versed in both appellate procedure AND the law.
But you think your unlearned personal belief is more knowledgeable than his. Worse, you don't think that because you care about the issue. No, you're trying to foist that belief off on everyone, including yourself, on the basis that someone on the innerdweebs said something that offended you once so now you have to "show them" something or other. You're not really sure what you're showing them, or how you're going to do it, but you're all in on the idea so you post bullshit like the above.
You need to get a life and grow the fuck up. Meanwhile I'll await the SCOTUS decision and/or the en banc opinion reversing the decision(s).

Oh look.
Derpy's still clinging to his "Dissent RIGHT, Majority Opinion WRONG" blather.

Sad.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh look.
Derpy's still clinging to his "Dissent RIGHT, Majority Opinion WRONG" blather.

Sad.

I at least have a rational basis for my beliefs.

You've not nothing but bile and intestinal gas.

 

[HisArpy]

But you think your unlearned personal belief is more knowledgeable than the two judges that decided the case.

Fake lawyer MAGA sheep are the funniest.

^still can't figure it out.

 

[MajorRewrite]

^still can't figure it out.

We all figured out your dopey nonsense long ago, Mr Fake Lawyer.