and here they go again, carrying water for the R's and Trump.
I wonder, what is the appropriate standard for investigating an attempted coup?
I guess it's BenghaziiIIIIIII!!!!!!!!
Times reports that Jan 6th committee is being dangerously aggressive and isn't living up to the standard of the House Benghazi probe. https://t.co/RZ82kZlnSa
This article about the pernicious effects of gerrymandering NEVER MENTIONS that the R's are opposed to the Dem sponsored legislation to eliminate it. It never mentions the legislation at all, in fact. It's just a standard "boohoo both-sides are doing it" piece of crap. It also never mentions that the R's on SCOTUS said that "oh, no. we can't do anything about that!".
Read this and you will be dumber about the subject. Good job.
Ah, actually took me a second to realize that by "legislation" you are referring to the voting rights bill Democrats have been attempting to pass at the national level. Given the context of NYS redistricting in the story, at first thought you were referring to some state-level NY bill I'd missed.
what these articles generally don't focus on (and the NYT is not the only media outlet writing those kind of gerrymandering pieces) is that the redistricting after the 2010 census by the GOP was the most aggressive in history. Gerrymandering has been around forever, but ten years ago the Republicans were more sophisticated in their use of data, and the outcome was more extreme in several states. And the SCOTUS has shown virtually no inclination to rule on the side of fairer partisan redistricting.
so the context of Democratic gerrymandering now is that for them to NOT do what they can to press any advantages they have would be stupid beyond belief. The Republicans in many states, and the right wingers on the SCOTUS have made the rules. The Democrats are just playing by those rules. To do otherwise would be unconditional surrender.
Is the best possible outcome then for the courts to strike down the NYS districts? Then the Democrats aren't unconditionally surrendering, but an unfair gerrymander is not allowed to stand.
Is the best possible outcome then for the courts to strike down the NYS districts? Then the Democrats aren't unconditionally surrendering, but an unfair gerrymander is not allowed to stand.
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
Well, that's a bit of a tricky propostion -- I hope court A does the right thing, but only if court B also does. If court B does the wrong thing, then I don't want court A to do so...
Not sure I feel fully comfortable with that approach.
only if every GOP gerrymander around the country is also struck down.
Well, that's a bit of a tricky propostion -- I hope court A does the right thing, but only if court B also does. If court B does the wrong thing, then I don't want court A to do so...
Not sure I feel fully comfortable with that approach.
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
Agreed, but a court in NY doesn't have any ability to force a state court in FL to rule in any particular way.
As a citizen, I hope all the courts strike down all the gerrymanders. If I imagine myself as a NY state judge, though, then I'd say that the NY districts should be struck down regardless of whatever happens in Florida.
So then backing out to the point of being just a private citizen, and throwing on the veil of ignorance as to what Florida courts will do, if you ask me what I hope a NY court will do I think I have to say that I hope they strike down the gerrymander.
it's not the best outcome for the country if only Democratic gerrymanders get shot down by the courts. The best outcome would be all of them.
Agreed, but a court in NY doesn't have any ability to force a state court in FL to rule in any particular way.
As a citizen, I hope all the courts strike down all the gerrymanders. If I imagine myself as a NY state judge, though, then I'd say that the NY districts should be struck down regardless of whatever happens in Florida.
So then backing out to the point of being just a private citizen, and throwing on the veil of ignorance as to what Florida courts will do, if you ask me what I hope a NY court will do I think I have to say that I hope they strike down the gerrymander.
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding your question, or your answer.
One way I could take your answer is as saying "I hope that a NY state judge will take the potential actions of judges in other states into account when making her or his ruling." If that's accurate, then it's saying that the judge shouldn't rule based solely on whether the proposed districts violate the NY state constitution, but also based on the implications for which party controls the US House. On its own, that makes me uneasy already.
Ok, you might respond, but these are extraordinary times. One party has rejected democracy, and we should admit that judges are, in fact, political actors and so we should hope that the judge in NY will decide so as to make it harder for the anti-democratic Republican party to seize control of the US House.
Maybe, but doesn't that imply that the survival of American democracy requires that Republicans never win a national election again? If not, then I'm not sure we can insist that times are so extraordinary that state judges should make their judgements to tip the balance of the US House. If yes, then that seems worse, as it's nearly a given that Republicans will, at some point, win back national control, and if the plan is really just "never let Republicans win," then I see some flaws with that plan.
I can't don that veil of ignorance. These are not normal times, and we already have lived for decades under the condition of Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball. It would be a very bad thing indeed for all of us in this country if courts threw out Democratic gerrymanders and left those of Republicans in place. If the NYT and others think we have a crisis of too many uncontested elections, just wait and see what happens when the GOP has cemented an institutional advantage in the House that becomes impossible to overturn.
Maybe I'm not fully understanding your question, or your answer.
One way I could take your answer is as saying "I hope that a NY state judge will take the potential actions of judges in other states into account when making her or his ruling." If that's accurate, then it's saying that the judge shouldn't rule based solely on whether the proposed districts violate the NY state constitution, but also based on the implications for which party controls the US House. On its own, that makes me uneasy already.
Ok, you might respond, but these are extraordinary times. One party has rejected democracy, and we should admit that judges are, in fact, political actors and so we should hope that the judge in NY will decide so as to make it harder for the anti-democratic Republican party to seize control of the US House.
Maybe, but doesn't that imply that the survival of American democracy requires that Republicans never win a national election again? If not, then I'm not sure we can insist that times are so extraordinary that state judges should make their judgements to tip the balance of the US House. If yes, then that seems worse, as it's nearly a given that Republicans will, at some point, win back national control, and if the plan is really just "never let Republicans win," then I see some flaws with that plan.
you asked what my opinion of the best outcome would be. Not what I know of NY State law and how a judge SHOULD rule. The law may require the court to strike down the gerrymander, and it might be the right decision according to the law.
but it would almost certainly be a disastrous outcome for the country if it is the start of a trend of one party's gerrymanders standing and the others being struck down.
Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama’s Congressional Voting Map
A special three-judge court had ordered lawmakers to redraw the lines, saying Black voters “have less opportunity” than other Alabamians to elect their favored candidates.
I was saying yesterday, specifically with regard to the SOMA Talks FB page that right wing folks seem to do nothing but complain about how terrible everything is. It seems to me that a characteristic of many right wing people is that they think the world is generally out to screw them. That government confiscates their money to squander it, that the libs just want to impose stuff on them, that the schools stink, there's no parking anywhere, sports used to be better in the good old days, people were tougher back then, etc., etc., etc.
So in the first piece you linked to I read:
Part of the genius of Roger Ailes was discovering, even before Donald Trump did, that an aggrieved audience would be a loyal and attentive one. Thus most stories and narrative themes on Fox boil down to, someone is trying to get you. And those people are probably being hypocritical or cheaters while doing so.
pretty much sums up SOMA Talks. Everything in the world is out to get them.
here's a good evisceration of a recent Times copaganda piece.
THREAD. Yesterday the New York Times reached a new ethical low in its reporting on crime. The paper allowed a reporter to use the emotional Brooklyn subway shooting to spread pro-cop misinformation. I try my best to explain below what happened in detail.
and here they go again, carrying water for the R's and Trump.
I wonder, what is the appropriate standard for investigating an attempted coup?
I guess it's BenghaziiIIIIIII!!!!!!!!