Redistricting Wars

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah, about that...I

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...r&cvid=c664156c418646abf1a270c071efbfb1&ei=37

oh look.

Derpy found an editorial that supports his twisted view of the law, the twisted view that got shot down at the Texas court of appeals this day.

Now, Barrister Derpy did not quote any particular quotes from his 'prooooooof" which leads us to believe he went the Rightguide/BrightShinyGirl route and post a link solely on the contents of the headline.

I actually read the editorial, the gist of the piece was that the original legislation contained a trigger that would only go into effect if Texas actually enacted their highly partisan "Stop the Negros" redistricting.

But the measure proved so popular in California that the legislators said the hell with it, we''ll adopt the redistricting plan favoring democrats regardless of what tomfoolery is being done by the Texas state legislature, the general public seem in favor of it.

And he was right, California voters enshrined the change into their constitution, which has low education Republicans squealing about "fairness", a legal concept that does not appear to exist.

Anyway, Derpy ends up looking more stupid than ever, as is generally the case when he discusses teh intracacies of teh Law.

America 2, Barrister Derpy, esquire 0

 

[ll74]

Excellent news. Any setback for gerrymandering is a win for American voters.

California's effort should also be defeated.

 

[RobDownSouth]

California's effort should also be defeated.

And why is that?

1. The California legislature's partisan efforts earlier this year were declared "legal" earlier this year by the activist Supreme Court.
2. California has an additional Constitutional safeguard that any changes NOT made by the independent non-partisan redistricting commission may NOT take effect until ratified by a statewide vote.
3. The Democratic party of California followed the law (which was enshrined in their state constitution) and had their change ratified by the voters, not some fossilized panel of judges.

Seems to me everything was done completely above board.

 

[ll74]

And why is that?

Because gerrymandering should be illegal.

1. The California legislature's partisan efforts earlier this year were declared "legal" earlier this year by the activist Supreme Court.
2. California has an additional Constitutional safeguard that any changes NOT made by the independent non-partisan redistricting commission may NOT take effect until ratified by a statewide vote.
3. The Democratic party of California followed the law (which was enshrined in their state constitution) and had their change ratified by the voters, not some fossilized panel of judges.

Seems to me everything was done completely above board.

I know it's legal. It shouldn't be.

 

[HisArpy]

oh look.

Derpy found an editorial that supports his twisted view of the law, the twisted view that got shot down at the Texas court of appeals this day.

Now, Barrister Derpy did not quote any particular quotes from his 'prooooooof" which leads us to believe he went the Rightguide/BrightShinyGirl route and post a link solely on the contents of the headline.

I actually read the editorial, the gist of the piece was that the original legislation contained a trigger that would only go into effect if Texas actually enacted their highly partisan "Stop the Negros" redistricting.

But the measure proved so popular in California that the legislators said the hell with it, we''ll adopt the redistricting plan favoring democrats regardless of what tomfoolery is being done by the Texas state legislature, the general public seem in favor of it.

And he was right, California voters enshrined the change into their constitution, which has low education Republicans squealing about "fairness", a legal concept that does not appear to exist.

Anyway, Derpy ends up looking more stupid than ever, as is generally the case when he discusses teh intracacies of teh Law.

America 2, Barrister Derpy, esquire 0

Hah.

Here's the thing you're missing, big brain; I at least HAVE a source that supports my position.

You, OTOH, got nada.

Have a fantastic day gazing at your naval.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Because gerrymandering should be illegal.


I know it's legal. It shouldn't be.

Fair enough.

 

[Bray123]

 

[HisArpy]

View attachment 2578703

Now do California...

 

[Bray123]

Now do California...

 

[Bray123]

Now do California...

Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I at least HAVE a source that supports my position

You have a fellow MAGAt's confirmation bias.

We have the law, you DerpyDumbFuck.

Now, pretend you're a lawyer again

 

[HisArpy]

Never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to.

Now look at the legislative party affiliations.

 

[Bray123]

Turns out there are only 15 states with more R than D registrations, including Florida and some fly-overs.

This is fun. Derpy has raised the sheer scale of electoral corruption, caused by the slave-owners who decided that their opinion counted for more than all the Northerners and set up the Electoral College to cast their preferences in stone.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Hah.

Here's the thing you're missing, big brain; I at least HAVE a source that supports my position.

You, OTOH, got nada.

Have a fantastic day gazing at your naval.

Not a single thing you said above holds up to legal scrutiny.

I referred to the Federal Appeals Court 2-1 decision holding that the Texas redistricting legislation, which you claimed was LEGAL, was in fact unconstitutional. The decision is here (PDF)

This means your contention that what Texas did was LEGAL is false. The Federal Court of Appeals has rejected your premise, citing a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. Unless you wish to hang on to the specious fiction that something ruled "unconsitutional" is still somehow "LEGAL", I urge you to take your loss like a man.

Your "source" that you cling to like a drowning man clings to a life preserver, promotes the idea that California's voter-approved redistricting plan should be invalidated because it's not "fair".

Really? That's all you got?

Have a fantastic day fumbling around for yet another red herring.

 

[HisArpy]

Turns out there are only 15 states with more R than D registrations, including Florida and some fly-overs.

This is fun. Derpy has raised the sheer scale of electoral corruption, caused by the slave-owners who decided that their opinion counted for more than all the Northerners and set up the Electoral College to cast their preferences in stone.

This does not explain how % of party affiliation doesn't equate to equal representation where Legislatures are overwhelmingly skewed to the Democrats in Blue states. In fact it attempts to deflect from your party's efforts to rig the game by trying to blame R's for something they never did.

And here you are, like fucking lunatics screaming to high heaven, claiming it's illegal/immoral/irresponsible to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING in creating new laws to gerrymander congressional districts.

Honestly, you turd brains need to get a clue.

 

[HisArpy]

You have a fellow MAGAt's confirmation bias.

We have the law, you DerpyDumbFuck.

Now, pretend you're a lawyer again

You have the mountain of bullshit you spew to keep you warm at night.

 

[Rotadom]

Now look at the legislative party affiliations.

Why move the goalposts, ?

Isn't getting embarrassed daily becoming tiresome to you?

 

[DeluxAuto]

You have the mountain of bullshit you spew to keep you warm at night.

That's a weird take after being smacked upside your empty with my truths.

 

[Bray123]

This does not explain how % of party affiliation doesn't equate to equal representation where Legislatures are overwhelmingly skewed to the Democrats in Blue states. In fact it attempts to deflect from your party's efforts to rig the game by trying to blame R's for something they never did.

And here you are, like fucking lunatics screaming to high heaven, claiming it's illegal/immoral/irresponsible to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING in creating new laws to gerrymander congressional districts.

Honestly, you turd brains need to get a clue.

Gerrymandering, gerrymandering, gerrymandering.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The legislature voted to change the process of using independent commitees that draw the congressional district maps based. They were given the right to do this by recent Supreme Court rulings.


The Texas process was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore ILLEGAL today in the full Federal Court of Appeals in Texas by a 2-1 margin.

Trump’s Scheme to Give the GOP Extra House Seats In Texas Just Blew Up in His Face​

A Trump appointee penned the majority decision.

Texas crafted an airtight partisan gerrymandering bill as permitted by the US Supreme Court

Then Trump's Department of "Justice" got involved. A spectacular Derpy-esque misinterpretation of the law ensued.

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Petteway v. Galveston County, that states were under NO obligation to create Congressional districts based on race.

Trump's DOJ attorneys twisted this to mean that ANY Congressional district where white people are NOT in the majority were ipso facto "racist" and must be broken apart.

They shamelessly inserted paragraph after paragraph into Texas state legislation that basically prohibiting the election of black candidates.

This was the legislation that Texas Democrats fled their state to draw attention to it.

So the law was eventually passed and immediately challenged in court today.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand.....the Trump federal judge says such blatant racism is a clear violation of something called the "Tenth Amendment"....a part of the United States Constitution.

The best part of this ruling is that the Supreme Court CANNOT invalidate another section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act from the bench because smart Democratic lawyers based their case entirely on the Tenth Amendment....and the Supremes cannot rewrite the Constitution (although Scalia seems to think he can!)

So in summary, Fuck You Derpy. American won, You lost,....again.

[/QUOTE]
CBS Texas today has an interesting revelation....Texas was well on the way to disenfranchising POC "legally" before the DOJ stepped in.

It turns out the DOJ didn't "suggest" modifications to Texas proposed law....It DEMANDED that Texas specifically "crack" four counties in Texas that had significant African American and Hispanic populations....that had voted overwhelmingly for Harris in 2024....and "salt" them into existing conservative white districts.

Racists gonna racist.

The DOJ threatened a massive lawsuit against both the Texas governor AND the Texas Attorney General if their demands were not met.

Small wonder that the normally-Trump worshipping, racist adulterous impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxson muttered yesterday semi-on-the-record about the DOJ "fucking things up".

 

[HisArpy]

Why move the goalposts, ?

Isn't getting embarrassed daily becoming tiresome to you?

If you're going to dredge up the R & D percentages in Texas to talk shit about how D's are "under represented" then it's not moving the goalposts to POINT OUT HOW CALIFORNIA IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE despite the State being basically 50/50 split R & D.

Not that I expect you to understand one bit of that, because you're fucking stupid, but you could at least sit down and shut the fuck up about stuff you don't know shit about.

 

[HisArpy]

CBS Texas today has an interesting revelation....Texas was well on the way to disenfranchising POC "legally" before the DOJ stepped in.

It turns out the DOJ didn't "suggest" modifications to Texas proposed law....It DEMANDED that Texas specifically "crack" four counties in Texas that had significant African American and Hispanic populations....that had voted overwhelmingly for Harris in 2024....and "salt" them into existing conservative white districts.

Racists gonna racist.

The DOJ threatened a massive lawsuit against both the Texas governor AND the Texas Attorney General if their demands were not met. Small wonder that the normally-Trump worshipping, racist adulterous impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxson muttered yesterday semi-on-the-record about the DOJ "fucking things up".

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.

 

[Rotadom]

If you're going to dredge up the R & D percentages in Texas to talk shit about how D's are "under represented" then it's not moving the goalposts to POINT OUT HOW CALIFORNIA IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE despite the State being basically 50/50 split R & D.

Not that I expect you to understand one bit of that, because you're fucking stupid, but you could at least sit down and shut the fuck up about stuff you don't know shit about.

It's always funny when you talk your immediately after being embarrassed in an argument regarding your chosen profession.

 

[HisArpy]

It's always funny when you talk your immediately after being embarrassed in an argument regarding your chosen profession.

What's hilarious is that you think being a halfwit on the internet qualifies you for a participation award.

 

[Rotadom]

What's hilarious is that you think being a halfwit on the internet qualifies you for a participation award.

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