The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year’s midterm election, clearing the way for the state’s gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The state’s voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas’ new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House.
And in an unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court’s majority denied an emergency request by the California’s Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state’s GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.
It’s not weird if you start with the premise of Democrats being just as dirty and underhanded as Republicans. Both these private organizations benefit from this. The people, not so much.
Dirty and underhanded? Sure. “Just as” dirty and underhanded? No.
The world is not black and white. People are not either pure or utterly corrupt. Everything is a spectrum, everything a matter of degree.
Interesting that you want to argue that the world isn’t black and white while arguing that simple party affiliation determines whether someone deserves sympathy or villification for the same action.
This is a very “only the Sith deal in absolutes!” type of statement.
The truth is that people are just desperately clinging to the idea that Democrats winning an election will solve all our problems despite all the evidence to the contrary. They’ve proven time and time again that they are completely fine with “the status quo” because they benefit from all this turmoil just as much as Republicans do. They will not be our saviors no matter how badly people want to believe it.
Nonsense. No one is arguing that “simple party affiliation” is what makes gerrymandering okay.
California’s law specifically triggered only if Texas went through with their proposed gerrymander. It also has an expiration date following the 2030 census, at which point the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will resume their duties.
Please tell me you realize these are not the same. If you cannot see the difference, you are either a zealot or arguing in poor faith.
You’re arguing that people are more dirty and underhanded if they’re Republican which completely contradicts your earlier statement about things not being “black and white.”
And yes, you and many others are arguing that it’s okay because it helps Democrats whether you want to admit (or even realize) that this is the root of your argument or not.
Which was only possible due to state Democrats showing up to the Texas legislature and giving the Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the vote. There’s no “only if” when the outcome was a foregone conclusion. This is just slimy language to put the onus on Republicans for what’s happening despite them being unable to do it without the assistance of Democrats.
So “bad deeds” today with the promise that things will be “put right” at some point far into the future? I can’t believe people can’t see through bullshit like this by now as politicians use this tactic constantly. It should be Chuck Schumer’s catch phrase by now.
If there’s such a stark and obvious difference, why is your whole argument based on faith and subjectivity? Faith they’ll make it right in the future. Belief that they’re the good guys, so they’re doing it for a ‘good’ reason. You want to argue that things aren’t black and white and it’s not about party affiliation yet that’s exactly what “the difference” appears to be. Where’s the objectivity?
https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-the-supreme-court-s-decisions-in-gerrymandering-cases
Do you agree that gerrymandering is unjust and deeply dangerous to democracy, robbing people of their right to have an equal voice or is that only true when Republicans do it? Democrats had the power to stop this in Texas before it ever happened, yet they chose to not only aid Republicans in their quest to gerrymander but also engage in it themselves. This is why I don’t see any difference.
Democrats vote for something that should not benefit them and benefits the people as a whole. Republicans do something that makes a change necessary. Democrats vote to TEMPORARILY undo that benefit for the people with a time-based reenacting of the benefit.
You: BOTH SIDES!!
Democrats try to vote for ranked choice voting in some states. Republicans push to outlaw that for the entire country.
You: BOTH SIDES!!
Its funny you menting RCV because that was on the ballot here in Oregon last election and it failed by a 15 point margin because it got little support outside of citizen-lead efforts. State Dems of course want credit for putting it on the ballot despite abandoning their efforts after that and allowing disinformation to run rampant in the weeks and months leading up to election day. Dems have controlled the state for generations now, so why change a system that works for them?
It’s weird because Dems have been the ones making all the anti gerrymandering laws lmao
Takes a very low iq to understand both sides being the same
Of course because it’s good PR, and then later when they don’t want to be constricted by such rules, they just write new laws to nullify it.
The result is effectively the same as if they’d never passed these anti-gerrymandering laws in the first place, yet the sycophants eat this stuff up despite getting absolutely nothing from it.
Don’t forget that the Texas legislature was only able to gerrymander due to Texas Dems showing up and giving them a quorum.