Dumbass Republicans Trying to Start a Civil War in Texas

[SpaceCoastVol]

So you think SCOTUS should ignore the constitution when it conflicts with public opinion? Also, how are the 9 supremes supposed to judge public opinion?

1800- ASK - DEMS

 

[tbh]

Your whole premise is askew. What is the concept for a supreme court? Is it deciding what is popular or what is constitutional?

From the sound of it, the desire is that sometime in the future, the Supreme Court will 1) base decisions on Twitter/X polling, and 2) won't issue rulings but instead they'll issue reaction videos (with dissents delivered via TikTok). Attorneys will be resigned to the history books as arguments are made by influencers. The bar exam will be eliminated in favor of a minimum subscriber count.

 

[ETV]

From the sound of it, the desire is that sometime in the future, the Supreme Court will 1) base decisions on Twitter/X polling, and 2) won't issue rulings but instead they'll issue reaction videos (with dissents delivered via TikTok). Attorneys will be resigned to the history books as arguments are made by influencers. The bar exam will be eliminated in favor of a minimum subscriber count.

You're joking about something that may one day become a requirement. Give it 50 years and see where we're at.

 

[LouderVol]

Just like they did under Autopen

So much for being better or voting for thr lesser evil. You just vote whichever color they tell you and defend your team no matter the cause.

 

[LouderVol]

I can see it now, one bus chasing another bus all across the country. That would make good reality tv but would not exactly be practical

Launch an ambush. Box them in. Kinda wondering what the quorum rules are. Do they have to say "here" or something? Or can you sneaky sneak without them knowing.

I mean they have voted on things when no one knew what was in them. I don't see a "hidden" quorum as any worse.

 

[McDad]

We all know that 1) in the end, they will successfully gerrymander the five districts in question so as to eliminate five potential Dem seats in 2026; and 2) the Dems will do the same thing somewhere else; and 3) the GOP will do it some more elsewhere.

As long as state legislatures control the drawing of Congressional lines, and can do so arbitrarily, and can brazenly do so in a manner that changes the composition of the Congress, this will remain a problem. It is fundamentally wrong to have state legislatures control federal office battle lines.

Personally, I'd prefer that we have a system whereby Congressional districts are based entirely on objective measures such as population and geography. Square districts (accommodating geographical boundaries), not accounting for weakening the opposition by splitting their votes into tiny fractions.

Take the politics out of it, completely.

 

[tbh]

You're joking about something that may one day become a requirement. Give it 50 years and see where we're at.

Sad but true. I keep thinking "Idiocracy" needs a sequel...and I would not be surprised if things continue to head in that direction.

 

[McDad]

I agree, but the rules are the rules for NOW.

California republicans have been getting the gerrymandered shaft for . that's what the California R's get for living in a State ruled by dems. Same with the Dems in Texas... I believe that the district lines should be drawn by a non-partisan third party - THAT would be the only way to fairly ensure that districts were fairly represented for all constituents.

The system is fu*ked but the optics of the dem officials dipping out of town to avoid doing their jobs is dogsh*t awful.

I asked earlier today how to create districts better. Nobody offered a suggestion.

A third party "non partisan" committee is one of the ways I found in my search today. It is fraught with potential corruption.

There are a couple of other ways I found. Each with it's own pros and cons.

My suggestion is to 10x the size of congress. More districts means smaller, and more homogeneous groupings of people.

 

[Orangeburst]

I asked earlier today how to create districts better. Nobody offered a suggestion.

A third party "non partisan" committee is one of the ways I found in my search today. It is fraught with potential corruption.

There are a couple of other ways I found. Each with it's own pros and cons.

My suggestion is to 10x the size of congress. More districts means smaller, and more homogeneous groupings of people.

 

[Septic]

I asked earlier today how to create districts better. Nobody offered a suggestion.

A third party "non partisan" committee is one of the ways I found in my search today. It is fraught with potential corruption.

There are a couple of other ways I found. Each with it's own pros and cons.

My suggestion is to 10x the size of congress. More districts means smaller, and more homogeneous groupings of people.

I mean, is there a scenario that's not fraught with potential corruption?

 

[lawgator1]

I asked earlier today how to create districts better. Nobody offered a suggestion.

A third party "non partisan" committee is one of the ways I found in my search today. It is fraught with potential corruption.

There are a couple of other ways I found. Each with it's own pros and cons.

My suggestion is to 10x the size of congress. More districts means smaller, and more homogeneous groupings of people.

Or make it blind. Take the population of a given state and divide by x, and that gives you your number of districts. Then have AI draw a randomized map of contiguous equal numbers of population. Redraw every 5 years, randomly. Let people run for reelection as long as they are within y miles of the line of the newly drawn district they were in.

 

[McDad]

I mean, is there a scenario that's not fraught with potential corruption?

There isn't.
So, we have to analyze and ask is the corruption we know better than the corruption we know not.

I think more, smaller districts will help make the corruption less consequential but it's only a theory.

 

[85SugarVol]

That’s fkn dumb

 

[85SugarVol]

Roe v. Wade overturned.

Not cool. Defies public opinion bigly.

The Supreme Court should rule based on the prevailing attitude of the mob? Ooof.

 

[McDad]

Or make it blind. Take the population of a given state and divide by x, and that gives you your number of districts. Then have AI draw a randomized map of contiguous equal numbers of population. Redraw every 5 years, randomly. Let people run for reelection as long as they are within y miles of the line of the newly drawn district they were in.

That was one of the other ideas I found. It's a popular one, too. Using tech to divide out the districts.
Programs are only as good as their programming. That is problematic.

 

[85SugarVol]

Barret is Roberts lite, but they're both adherents to the 'unitary executive theory', and she doesn't really believe in a true separation of church and state. In the long run she'll have as many naked 'partisan hack' rulings as anyone else that currently sits on the court.

That’s just absurd.

Sonia Sotomayor currently sits the Court.
Samuel Alito currently sits the Court.

 

[lawgator1]

That was one of the other ideas I found. It's a popular one, too. Using tech to divide out the districts.
Programs are only as good as they're programming. That is problematic.

Meh, better than humans doing it. And if it was skewed past statistical probability it could be looked at. Especially if it did it twice in a row.

Bottom line let's get it out of the hands of either political party.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

LMAO .... all hat and NO cattle as they say down in Texas.

 

[85SugarVol]

Garland was never concerned about being overly partisan, his time as AG proved that.

With that being said, he should have gotten a vote but we as a country dodged a bullet with him not getting one.

Eh, I don’t think so.

He should have gotten a vote.
He would not have been confirmed.

Due to the stark discrepancy between the Garland nomination and the Barrett nomination…. That is always omitted when the cries of “it was the same” go up.

 

[85SugarVol]

Or make it blind. Take the population of a given state and divide by x, and that gives you your number of districts. Then have AI draw a randomized map of contiguous equal numbers of population. Redraw every 5 years, randomly. Let people run for reelection as long as they are within y miles of the line of the newly drawn district they were in.

Yoooooo @luthervol

We got ourselves a new X by Y up in here.

 

[McDad]

Meh, better than humans doing it. And if it was skewed past statistical probability it could be looked at. Especially if it did it twice in a row.

Bottom line let's get it out of the hands of either political party.

Humans are doing it, though. AI is programming. Programs are coded by humans.
I think it should be tested. Which is a benefit of having each state as it's own autonomous entity. New ideas can be vetted prior to wholesale adoption.

 

[jmacvols1]

That’s fkn dumb

Texas authorities have no jurisdiction in Illinois, so request for the FBI to help in arrests.

 

[BreatheUT]

You haven’t noticed allllllllllllllllllllll of that person’s propaganda spam that typically goes un-responded-to?

Outside of being unrelated to this thread, that democrat congresswoman is an ungrateful pos. Yall democrats keep electing them though.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Texas authorities have no jurisdiction in Illinois, so request for the FBI to help in arrests.

I think they should send this guy. He'll just shoot their worthless asses.

 

[jmacvols1]

I think they should send this guy. He'll just shoot their worthless asses.