SCOTUS rules on gerrymandering

[Whispering 18,865]

3 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

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. 

 

He and his fellow Republicans in charge would not have budged. There was too much at stake and they knew it. He was playing the long game and he won. No amount of public unrest would have mattered to him and his cronies. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

27 minutes ago, AgusPop said:

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

 

from what i saw what you describe are two reactions to two separate decisions. the one you link above could be bad for trump--because theoretically speaking it won't deflate the count of liberals in districts--while the decision in the OP--which is in regards to gerrymandering itself--is good for trump and republicans at large. :P 

[Eighteen 5,430]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

He and his fellow Republicans in charge would not have budged. There was too much at stake and they knew it. He was playing the long game and he won. No amount of public unrest would have mattered to him and his cronies. 

pretty much this. he literally said that if hillary won he'd have kept the seat open for 4 more years lol

[Whispering 18,865]

Also, Elizabeth Warren's election plan calls for requiring states to use an independent redistricting committee. In light of this SCOTUS decision, that plan looks more important than ever.

[SKANK 14,288]

38 minutes ago, Whispering said:

He and his fellow Republicans in charge would not have budged. There was too much at stake and they knew it. He was playing the long game and he won. No amount of public unrest would have mattered to him and his cronies. 

 

“Chris Kang, who worked in the Obama White House for six years and played a central role in getting his judicial nominees confirmed, said “there’s no question” Democrats could have done more to push Garland’s nomination through, even if they had limited options in the minority.”

Again, there is no way for either us to know with certainty how the Supreme Court would look today had the Democrats fought harder and mobilized their base, and the opinions of experts is divided.  

Regardless of whether or not McConnel would have actually  succumb to pressure, the lack of public outrage and protests, and lack of fight in the Dems, was a bad sign for the health of our Democracy. 

[Whispering 18,865]

12 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

“Chris Kang, who worked in the Obama White House for six years and played a central role in getting his judicial nominees confirmed, said “there’s no question” Democrats could have done more to push Garland’s nomination through, even if they had limited options in the minority.”

Again, there is no way for either us to know with certainty how the Supreme Court would look today had the Democrats fought harder and mobilized their base, and the opinions of experts is divided.  

Regardless of whether or not McConnel would have actually  succumb to pressure, the lack of public outrage and protests, and lack of fight in the Dems, was a bad sign for the health of our Democracy. 

 

52 minutes ago, Eighteen said:

he literally said that if hillary won he'd have kept the seat open for 4 more years lol

 

[SKANK 14,288]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

 

 

 

That seems like a pretty obvious case of blustering for his base. However if you want to be the first person in the world to take a politician at their word, McConnell may not be your best starting point.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/10/26/1338757/-The-11-top-lies-of-Mitch-Myth-McConnell

 

As I said, regardless of the outcome, a more robust public response to the Garland seat being stolen, would have been better for our democracy. I'm sure you agree.

 

 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

16 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

That seems like a pretty obvious case of blustering for his base. However if you want to be the first person in the world to take a politician at their word, McConnell may not be your best starting point.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/10/26/1338757/-The-11-top-lies-of-Mitch-Myth-McConnell

 

As I said, regardless of the outcome, a more robust public response to the Garland seat being stolen, would have been better for our democracy. I'm sure you agree.

 

 

 

It wouldn’t have mattered. Everyone knew that.

What mattered was the 2016 election. Democrats aren’t motivated by fear.

Moreover, the state legislatures wouldn't have been so gerrymandered if the 2010 elections weren't a bloodbath. 

[SKANK 14,288]

20 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It wouldn’t have mattered. Everyone knew that.

 

1 hour ago, SKANK said:

“Chris Kang, who worked in the Obama White House for six years and played a central role in getting his judicial nominees confirmed, said “there’s no question” Democrats could have done more to push Garland’s nomination through, even if they had limited options in the minority.”