SCOTUS rules on gerrymandering

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

This is a sad day for democracy. 

Voters should choose their representatives NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 

Mitch McConnell is probably cheering. He has accomplished to let Republicans cheat to win once again. He blocked Obama’s SCOTUS pick and put in his own. 

Disgusting.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

So terrible. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

dang.

[Reginald 13,841]

 What the F, "cannot decide the question of partisan gerrymandering in federal courts?" If the states are required to determine this on their own, nothing is going to change because the people who gerrymandered the states will be the ones deciding if it's legal to do or not.

It's literally the Supreme Court's *job* to decide if this is legal or not (it's not) Ugh. 

[Emvee 8,840]

This is why democrats need to start playing dirty too. 

Nancy/Chuck, take a ****ing hint. 

[nikola 4,342]

Can someone explain to me what is gerrymandering

[BenG 19,908]

7 minutes ago, nikola said:

Can someone explain to me what is gerrymandering

An absurd way of carving out maps in order to gain sufficient voters for your party in certain seats

[Nemo 4,410]

24 minutes ago, Postboy said:

This is why democrats need to start playing dirty too. 

Nancy/Chuck, take a ****ing hint. 

The Maryland case cited here is one where it's gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. But that's relatively rare, as I understand it.

[Emvee 8,840]

1 hour ago, Nemo said:

The Maryland case cited here is one where it's gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. But that's relatively rare, as I understand it.

Time to make it more frequent if this is how most republicans are going to play. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Buttigieg has democratic reform and structural change his unequivocal top priority as president:

“The central lesson of Obama’s presidency is that any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated. It’s just not working that way right now. We’ve really hit a different moment in our political trajectory, where we are so paralyzed in our ability to address anything—from wages to climate to you name it—by the dysfunction in our system that it’s time to tend to our system. My top priority on day one is democratic reform, it's the condition of our democracy, because every other issue we face will not get solved properly as long as our democracy is this twisted.

If you are committed to democracy, then you have to make it easier, not harder, to vote. You have to make it easier, not harder, to register to vote. You have to make sure our districts are drawn so that voters are choosing our politicians rather than the other way around. And if we can’t get money out of politics without a constitutional amendment, then that’s what the constitutional amendment system is for. I think it’s entirely possible that the House of Representatives has the wrong number of representatives, the Supreme Court has the wrong number of justices, and the United States has the wrong number of states. I’m out to advance structural forms that will make this a more perfect union. Ones that will make this democratic republic more democratic.

Now, there’s a more narrow tactical question that is “What is the next president supposed to do?” and it’s one of the reasons why I think rightly the filibuster is coming back on the table, because, in the Senate as it is, there’s just no way to believe that a Democratic president can get anywhere when it requires 60 votes out of this Senate to do anything remotely ambitious.”

I agree with him on this priority!

[SKANK 14,288]

Had the democrats not dropped the ball with the Merrick Garland nomination, we wouldn’t be in this position. 

They should have rioted. We all should have. 

[Whispering 18,865]

2 minutes ago, SKANK said:

Had the democrats not dropped the ball with the Merrick Garland nomination, we wouldn’t be in this position. 

They should have rioted. We all should have. 

It wouldn’t have mattered. Mitch wasn’t going to give that one away. There was no one Obama could have nominated that the Mitch would have accepted. 

[AgusPop 4,162]

I don't understand anything . In twitter some says is bad news for Trump and in other it says is good news 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

6 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It wouldn’t have mattered. Mitch wasn’t going to give that one away. There was no one Obama could have nominated that the Mitch would have accepted. 

 

I don’t agree, but of course there is no way for either of us to really know. 

I think had the country mobilized with mass protests - lead by Obama and other Dem leaders - against that unprecedented power grab, we might have seen a different outcome. The indifference our country showed embolden McConnel.