Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Supreme Court Rules That Ineligible Voters, Including Illegal Aliens, Must Be Counted In Drawing a Congressional District's Lines
Should congressional districts have equal numbers of people, or equal numbers of eligible voters?
Seems to me like it should be the latter -- after all, the whole point of a congressional district is to draw a chunk of land in which voters will all vote together to elect a Congressman. But our wise masters of the Supreme Court say that illegal aliens must be included in congressional district's numerical strength. This gives actual voters in districts with more ineligible inhabitants more actual voting power than voters where most residents are eligible, because in the former case, each eligible voter casts a vote for, say, 1.4 people, whereas in districts where there are fewer ineligible voters, each eligible voter casts a vote for, say, 1.1 people. The holding was unanimous.Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
First?
Posted by: RawDogRevolution at April 04, 2016 02:15 PM (10hEu)
2
New thread!
Posted by: HH at April 04, 2016 02:15 PM (DrCtv)
3
Gonna disagree with you just a bit, Ace. I think that the district should be based off of *citizens*, which would include kids who are too young to vote, but would still discount both resident and illegal aliens.
Posted by: junior at April 04, 2016 02:15 PM (amCAe)
4
BOHICA
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:15 PM (nPrGV)
5
Just helping to elect the politicians that Americans won't.
Posted by: illegal aliens everywhere at April 04, 2016 02:16 PM (H9MG5)
6
The betrayal is complete.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, turkey ain't all that's stuffed at April 04, 2016 02:16 PM (V1M8q)
7
Will they suck worse when Hillary pick them?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 04, 2016 02:16 PM (P/aDH)
8
... the beginning of the end
Posted by: E.T. at April 04, 2016 02:16 PM (yq4gk)
9
Good for Texas.
Posted by: Rachel Jeantel at April 04, 2016 02:17 PM (y5bPZ)
10
We fucked
Posted by: Mr Pink at April 04, 2016 02:17 PM (J2AgK)
11
This just is not good.
Posted by: HH at April 04, 2016 02:17 PM (DrCtv)
12
I wonder how much this will simplify the ability to get illegals to vote. I don't know if I worded that correctly, but you get my point.
Posted by: Satan of Blutwurst Vt at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (qSIlh)
13
How will this work in practice? I thought illegals live in the shadows and all that. So, they'll line up to be counted for redistricting? And yes I know they tell you it doesn't matter for the census and no one will arrest you and all that.
Haven't really looked at the issue, but if Thomas voted for it, must be something to it.
Haven't really looked at the issue, but if Thomas voted for it, must be something to it.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (t06LC)
14
California will pick up two or three more districts and thus Electoral College votes just because of all the illegals.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (nPrGV)
15
No worries. As long as we vote in this election and end up with a John Roberts type SCOTUS pick, we'll be fine.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (uURQL)
16
Oh great, let's give the Rio Grande Valley more power to spread their corruption.
Posted by: Lauren at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (u6fQl)
17
Should congressional districts have equal numbers of people, or equal numbers of eligible voters?
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Seems to me, if you know where they're at, sweep in and scoop them up.
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Seems to me, if you know where they're at, sweep in and scoop them up.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (NsI03)
18
Good for Texas.
Posted by: Rachel Jeantel at April 04, 2016 02:17 PM (y5bPZ)
Kinda what I was thinking. Texas and Arizona just got some more districts.
Posted by: Rachel Jeantel at April 04, 2016 02:17 PM (y5bPZ)
Kinda what I was thinking. Texas and Arizona just got some more districts.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (t06LC)
19
Sounds about right.
Posted by: Try to enjoy the doom-filled ride down Doom Mountain, off of Doom Cliff, and into Doom Canyon at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (pMGkg)
20
Well fudgecicles.
Posted by: freaked at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (CDCEY)
21
And the US Census has not been 'accurate' for at least one or two cycles because they have been using 'estimates' in their calculations to account for the illegals already.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (nPrGV)
22
This seems likely to increase the power of cities even further than was already the case. The suburban and rural areas *will* be silenced.
Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (GDulk)
23
What in the shuddering f*** are they thinking?
Posted by: IP at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (aQQbl)
24
So are they including babies? They're ineligible to vote, too--and they'd be reliable Democrats.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (AroJD)
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (leBig)
26
There is pretty strong precedent. The the text of the Constitution specifically counted slaves - though at 2/3 a person per slave - for purposes of Congressional representation. They were certainly ineligible to vote.
Posted by: RD Walker at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (ImpgP)
27
It looks like Republicans obstruction of Merrick Garland came back to haunt them.
Posted by: Luke Russert at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (OD2ni)
28
This gives actual voters in districts with more ineligible inhabitants more actual voting power than voters where most residents are eligible
Well yes it does.
And that's why I didn't understand the uproar over OMG this (the challenge) disenfranchises the minorities who don't vote as much. They're already self-disenfranchising unless they're not eligible for the franchise.
It was 8-0. Are we supposed to go into a tizzy?
Well yes it does.
And that's why I didn't understand the uproar over OMG this (the challenge) disenfranchises the minorities who don't vote as much. They're already self-disenfranchising unless they're not eligible for the franchise.
It was 8-0. Are we supposed to go into a tizzy?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (1xUj/)
29
I think there is a legal distinction here that is missed, Ace.
The actual ruling from my understanding is to say that a State has the right to draw their congressional district this way if they choose, not that they must, or that this is the way they MUST be drawn.
The actual ruling from my understanding is to say that a State has the right to draw their congressional district this way if they choose, not that they must, or that this is the way they MUST be drawn.
Posted by: Roland Deschaines at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (F4PRx)
30
Don't like the electorate? Import a new one.
Posted by: brak at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (MJuTN)
31
How will this work in practice? I thought illegals live in the shadows and all that. So, they'll line up to be counted for redistricting? And yes I know they tell you it doesn't matter for the census and no one will arrest you and all that.
Haven't really looked at the issue, but if Thomas voted for it, must be something to it.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (t06LC)
The horror of living in the shadows. Maybe if we give them more welfare benefits, they'll bravely step into the light and discover that they too are the complete equals of American citizens.
Well, as equal as you can be when you forcibly extracting money from the other guy's wallet.
The point being that they need political representation. And citizenship. And more benefits.
Haven't really looked at the issue, but if Thomas voted for it, must be something to it.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (t06LC)
The horror of living in the shadows. Maybe if we give them more welfare benefits, they'll bravely step into the light and discover that they too are the complete equals of American citizens.
Well, as equal as you can be when you forcibly extracting money from the other guy's wallet.
The point being that they need political representation. And citizenship. And more benefits.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (uURQL)
32
Isn't this pretty par for the course though? Slaves were counted (albeit with a lower weighting), weren't they?
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (V40IZ)
33
Why even bother being a citizen anymore when you can be an illegal and reap all of the benefits being a citizen? Including in some cases, the ability to vote.
Posted by: Old Blue at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (9iR5/)
34
Maybe you can declare them 3/5 of a citizen's vote???
Posted by: andycanuck at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (UbeIw)
35
Unanimous, huh?
I must be missing something. Why would Alito and Thomas vote for this shit sandwich?
I must be missing something. Why would Alito and Thomas vote for this shit sandwich?
Posted by: L, Elle at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (2x3L+)
36
Oh great, let's give the Rio Grande Valley more power to spread their corruption.
Posted by: Lauren at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (u6fQl)
Gerrymandering can fix a lot with that. Also, if the illegals count but can't vote, seems like a number of these new districts could tilt red. Except California.
Posted by: Lauren at April 04, 2016 02:19 PM (u6fQl)
Gerrymandering can fix a lot with that. Also, if the illegals count but can't vote, seems like a number of these new districts could tilt red. Except California.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (t06LC)
37
The court ruled that states CAN do it this way, which is supposedly consistent with the 14th amendment, but not that they HAVE to do it this way.
So you can expect to see this litigated further, to push the 'you must' approach.
So you can expect to see this litigated further, to push the 'you must' approach.
Posted by: JEM at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: HH at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (DrCtv)
39
So are they including babies? They're ineligible to vote, too--and they'd be reliable Democrats.
Constantly sucking at the teat as they are wont to do.
Constantly sucking at the teat as they are wont to do.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (NsI03)
Posted by: naturalfake at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (0cMkb)
41
We can't deport them all, but we can count them in a Census and pay for their bills.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:21 PM (leBig)
42
Should congressional districts have equal numbers of people, or equal numbers of eligible voters?
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Yes BUT....what does the underlying Law say? THAT is what the Supreme Court is or should be ruling on. Is there a Lawyer in the House...I mean a real one.
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Yes BUT....what does the underlying Law say? THAT is what the Supreme Court is or should be ruling on. Is there a Lawyer in the House...I mean a real one.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (mw8Dm)
43
The actual ruling from my understanding is to say that a State has the right to draw their congressional district this way if they choose, not that they must, or that this is the way they MUST be drawn.
Posted by: Roland Deschaines at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (F4PRx)
Aannnnnddd, guess which way they CHOOSE!
Posted by: Roland Deschaines at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (F4PRx)
Aannnnnddd, guess which way they CHOOSE!
Posted by: kbdabear at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (9hYrP)
44
Kinda what I was thinking. Texas and Arizona just got some more districts.
This isn't a change. This is an affirmation of the way it's always been.
This isn't a change. This is an affirmation of the way it's always been.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (1xUj/)
45
The actual ruling from my understanding is to say that a State has the right to draw their congressional district this way if they choose, not that they must, or that this is the way they MUST be drawn.
which is why it was 8-0
which is why it was 8-0
Posted by: brak at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (MJuTN)
46
Well, there are plenty of children who are unable to vote who should be represented, shouldn't they? I don't think it would be fair to exclude children when counting populations for congressional districts.
I guess what should be done, then, is a thorough deporting of all illegals before the 2020 census. And Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals. That's the only way to 'fix' the problem as I see it.
I guess what should be done, then, is a thorough deporting of all illegals before the 2020 census. And Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals. That's the only way to 'fix' the problem as I see it.
Posted by: K-E at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (cqABU)
47
I'd like to get some more scenarios on what might happen and I figure the well informed here (not sarcasm) would have more ideas:
This election is fascinating - almost too many moving parts to keep track of. I was musing on the possible scenarios and how they intersect:
*Trump wins the delegates, gets first ballot.
*Trump wins the delegates, gets denied at convention. Cruz somehow steps in.
*Trump self-destructs now, Cruz gets the number fair and square.
*It's neither Trump nor Cruz as the GOP picks Ryan or somebody. Trump goes third party as a spoiler, and despite not being eligible in many states gets the vote majority, and the house of reps still picks Ryan. Or it picks Trump. Or it picks the Dem.
*Trump is the nominee, and Hillary is unindicted/untarnished - but then a huge terrorist attack occurs in NYC and Trump becomes the "Wartime" candidate and wins in a sweep. Substitute Cruz as nominee.
*Hillary is indicted, drops out, and Sanders is denied somehow - and Biden is thrown in - and Sanders' people stay home - and Cruz or Trump or whoever the GOP throws up there wins easily.
*Hillary is indicted but doesn't drop out - and loses easily.
*Sanders ends up pulling an Obama with the supers and wins the nomination and it's a straight up battle against Trump who also wins nom fair and square.
It's an almost endless series of possibilities and I can see any of the above actually happening. Do you guys have any more to add to this list? I am going to compile a master list over time.
This election is fascinating - almost too many moving parts to keep track of. I was musing on the possible scenarios and how they intersect:
*Trump wins the delegates, gets first ballot.
*Trump wins the delegates, gets denied at convention. Cruz somehow steps in.
*Trump self-destructs now, Cruz gets the number fair and square.
*It's neither Trump nor Cruz as the GOP picks Ryan or somebody. Trump goes third party as a spoiler, and despite not being eligible in many states gets the vote majority, and the house of reps still picks Ryan. Or it picks Trump. Or it picks the Dem.
*Trump is the nominee, and Hillary is unindicted/untarnished - but then a huge terrorist attack occurs in NYC and Trump becomes the "Wartime" candidate and wins in a sweep. Substitute Cruz as nominee.
*Hillary is indicted, drops out, and Sanders is denied somehow - and Biden is thrown in - and Sanders' people stay home - and Cruz or Trump or whoever the GOP throws up there wins easily.
*Hillary is indicted but doesn't drop out - and loses easily.
*Sanders ends up pulling an Obama with the supers and wins the nomination and it's a straight up battle against Trump who also wins nom fair and square.
It's an almost endless series of possibilities and I can see any of the above actually happening. Do you guys have any more to add to this list? I am going to compile a master list over time.
Posted by: Soulpatchtony at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (m40v5)
48
That which is not forbidden is required.
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (V40IZ)
49
I think I'm going to crawl back into the art thread and pull the covers over my head.
I think I'm going to crawl back into the art thread and pull the covers over my head.
Posted by: iforgot at April 04, 2016 02:23 PM (pC96u)
50
>> Gerrymandering can fix a lot with that. Also, if the illegals
>> count but can't vote, seems like a number of these new
>> districts could tilt red. Except California.
The issue is this: those areas where noncitizens accumulate tend to lean toward the Dark Side. So more noncitizens means more reps in the Pelosi Caucus, more districts where the citizens are disenfranchised.
>> count but can't vote, seems like a number of these new
>> districts could tilt red. Except California.
The issue is this: those areas where noncitizens accumulate tend to lean toward the Dark Side. So more noncitizens means more reps in the Pelosi Caucus, more districts where the citizens are disenfranchised.
Posted by: JEM at April 04, 2016 02:23 PM (o+SC1)
51
Bad rule.
But the Machiavelli in me looks at TX, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska as Red states that will benefit.
Of course the elephant in the room is California.
Bad rule.
But the Machiavelli in me looks at TX, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska as Red states that will benefit.
Of course the elephant in the room is California.
Posted by: fixerupper at April 04, 2016 02:23 PM (8XRCm)
52
Ace, your headline contains a serious mistake, review the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the states MAY do this, not that they MUST do this.
"We need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, states may
elect to draw districts to equalize voter population instead," Ginsburg
said.
The fact that this decision was unanimous should show you that the legal argument against was spurious.
"We need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, states may
elect to draw districts to equalize voter population instead," Ginsburg
said.
The fact that this decision was unanimous should show you that the legal argument against was spurious.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (/jecC)
53
Next up ... if they are counted for purposes of congressional districts they should be able to vote in those congressional districts.
Posted by: E.T. at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (yq4gk)
54
I think this is exactly the sort of thing people vote for over abstract principles without really measuring the consequences.
The principle is that representation should represent the population and not part of it, and the consequence is that the Democrat "importation of a new electorate" proceeds apace and everyone else can get fucked and shut up.
The principle is that representation should represent the population and not part of it, and the consequence is that the Democrat "importation of a new electorate" proceeds apace and everyone else can get fucked and shut up.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (wB8Tg)
55
Should congressional districts have equal numbers of people, or equal numbers of eligible voters?
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Neither. Go back to being community/location based. Your location is rich and successful and attracts a high population density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate everywhere else politically.
Seems to me like it should be the latter -
Neither. Go back to being community/location based. Your location is rich and successful and attracts a high population density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate everywhere else politically.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (uURQL)
Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (2bryz)
57
this is why we can't have nice things
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 04, 2016 02:25 PM (0O7c5)
58
Issac Hayes and Marley's Ghost go into a bar - on their way in, a panhandler asks them "Got any spare chains?"
Posted by: OK, Thanks, Bye at April 04, 2016 02:25 PM (ucB75)
Posted by: John Roberts at April 04, 2016 02:25 PM (9hYrP)
60
I just hate everything now. Eff it.
Posted by: chiefjaybob, who hates everyone at April 04, 2016 02:25 PM (T5hzo)
61
Who will stand up to the globalist cabal?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:25 PM (xuouz)
62
Next up ... if they are counted for purposes of congressional districts they should be able to vote in those congressional districts.
Slam dunk argument FOR citizenship.
Slam dunk argument FOR citizenship.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (NsI03)
63
* SMOD picks the Yellowstone Caldera as his running mate and slams into the Caldera on the night of November 4th. Women, minorities and illegal aliens friends you haven't met yet hardest hit.
Posted by: andycanuck at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (UbeIw)
64
Am I right that illegals get counted in the census for apportionment purposes? i.e. CA gets more Congressional representation because it has more Illegals than most states
Posted by: Ignoramus at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (r1fLd)
65
who cares? the supersonic downward spiral continues unabated. there aint shit anybody can do. that court is corrupt as everything else in this third world shihole.
Posted by: chavez the hugo at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (ucDmr)
66
In fairness, districts where they have larger families will have more voting power as well.
Posted by: Grump928(c) at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (evdj2)
67
Yay, stare decisis.
The headline from MSNBC on this was classic, something along the lines of "Racist GOP Suit to Do Racist Thing Is Slapped Down Because Racist". Thank God for journalism.
The headline from MSNBC on this was classic, something along the lines of "Racist GOP Suit to Do Racist Thing Is Slapped Down Because Racist". Thank God for journalism.
Posted by: joncelli, Now 50% More Bilious! at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (v9gSJ)
68
Back to my list of options:
- Secession
- Nullification
- Armed rebellion
- Article Five convention
In this instance, nullification is out. Nullification doesn't fix this.
Sadly, I believe Texas actually gets more new Congressmen than California does. That detail could conceivably be disincentive for the secession option.
- Secession
- Nullification
- Armed rebellion
- Article Five convention
In this instance, nullification is out. Nullification doesn't fix this.
Sadly, I believe Texas actually gets more new Congressmen than California does. That detail could conceivably be disincentive for the secession option.
Posted by: Qoheleth at April 04, 2016 02:26 PM (iIzG7)
69
photo ID requirement to vote, please.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:27 PM (xuouz)
70
Every decision made by everyone with any authority in government is wrong. I wonder how long even the most powerful nation can coast along while being mismanaged like this before the wheels come off and catastrophe ensues.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 04, 2016 02:27 PM (5E5Ie)
71
Also, everyone taking the vapors should realize that this decision was in favor of continuing to allocate districts in the same manner as has been done for at least 60 years now. It was the challengers who wanted to overturn the boundaries of almost every congressional district in the country, another reason the decision was unanimous against.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:27 PM (/jecC)
72
Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the States plan for counting for Congressional District designation?
Posted by: Zombie James Madison at April 04, 2016 02:28 PM (/m8T6)
73
Cicero, it depends if the PRC forecloses on the US to stave off their crash or Iran nukes the Great Satan.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:28 PM (nPrGV)
74
Do you guys have any more to add to this list? I am going to compile a master list over time.
Posted by: Soulpatchtony at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (m40v5)
I'm thinking "desperate and starving aliens from a lost mining ship invade and contentiously disunited humanity must engage in a pitched battle against a technologically superior but weakened and divided foe" is possibly the best outcome.
Posted by: Soulpatchtony at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (m40v5)
I'm thinking "desperate and starving aliens from a lost mining ship invade and contentiously disunited humanity must engage in a pitched battle against a technologically superior but weakened and divided foe" is possibly the best outcome.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:28 PM (wB8Tg)
75
If the Feds put all the prisons in one state, say Rhode Island, their representatives would rule the country!
Posted by: Grump928(c) at April 04, 2016 02:28 PM (evdj2)
76
i can see using illegals when determining how many police, fire, medical....paid for by the citizens taxes...there by hiking the taxes to the point where citizens are forced to turn on the illegals ....oh nevermind....that would actually encourage the citizens to grant amnesty and legalize the illegals.....
anyone mourning the loss of "walter" the middle head of the three headed person? could barely get thru the weekend when i heard the news......
anyone mourning the loss of "walter" the middle head of the three headed person? could barely get thru the weekend when i heard the news......
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 04, 2016 02:28 PM (0O7c5)
77
CA gets more Congressional representation because it has more Illegals than most states
That's why love our illegal aliens in CA. Well that, and the neat hedges.
That's why love our illegal aliens in CA. Well that, and the neat hedges.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (5E5Ie)
78
I can't decide if I have to read the decision to see the rationale or if omg zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Does this mean kids are counted?
That's an actual question, by the by. I mean, if voting eligibility isn't the test for determining size of a district, why shouldn't kids count?
Knee jerk response is that only the number of eligible voters should count but I freely admit I have not thought this through.
*clambers up on soapbox*
Hey you know what could happen? The VRA could be amended to clarify that districts will be determined based on the number of eligible voters.
Congress could, you know, do its job and pass laws that explain things.
*surveys kingdom*
Hmmm. The dragons by the outer edges seem a bit reckless. *consults Dwarven Book of Grudges for "volunteers" to parlay with them*
Does this mean kids are counted?
That's an actual question, by the by. I mean, if voting eligibility isn't the test for determining size of a district, why shouldn't kids count?
Knee jerk response is that only the number of eligible voters should count but I freely admit I have not thought this through.
*clambers up on soapbox*
Hey you know what could happen? The VRA could be amended to clarify that districts will be determined based on the number of eligible voters.
Congress could, you know, do its job and pass laws that explain things.
*surveys kingdom*
Hmmm. The dragons by the outer edges seem a bit reckless. *consults Dwarven Book of Grudges for "volunteers" to parlay with them*
Posted by: alexthechick - Destroyer of Gaia and Seductress of Savagery at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (mf5HN)
79
"The actual ruling from my understanding is to say that a State has the right to draw their congressional district this way if they choose, not that they must, or that this is the way they MUST be drawn.
Posted by: Roland Deschaines at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (F4PRx)
Aannnnnddd, guess which way they CHOOSE!"
I live in Maryland and our congressional district maps are obscene. Drawn so that most districts get enough PG/Montgomery/Baltimore to give Dems a huge advantage. The conservative areas (they do exist) get sliced and diced. Hell, I recently moved within the same damn town and my Rep changed (Hoyer to Edwards). The same GD town.
Posted by: Roland Deschaines at April 04, 2016 02:20 PM (F4PRx)
Aannnnnddd, guess which way they CHOOSE!"
I live in Maryland and our congressional district maps are obscene. Drawn so that most districts get enough PG/Montgomery/Baltimore to give Dems a huge advantage. The conservative areas (they do exist) get sliced and diced. Hell, I recently moved within the same damn town and my Rep changed (Hoyer to Edwards). The same GD town.
Posted by: Benji Carver at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (OD2ni)
80
The constitutionalists/originalists decided to rely upon the rationale behind the 3/5 compromise and the Progtards, surprising no one, advanced the agenda.
Posted by: CozMark at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (CbGSW)
81
>> I'd like to get some more scenarios on what might happen
On the GOP side: I see no way Cruz gets it on the first ballot. I also see Trump's path to 1200-whatever to be pretty slim. So second, maybe even third, ballot starts to look very important. Personal opinion - any attempt to hand the nomination to non-Cruz at that point ought to be greeted with piano wire and lamp posts.
On the Democrat side: they CAN'T nominate Hillary. It's a lemming-march over the cliff, maybe she's not indicted but in that case you'd see an uprising among the national-security apparatus. I expect to see Bernie as the Dem nominee whether they like it or not.
So, hopefully Ted against probably Bernie, which is a pretty good combo.
On the GOP side: I see no way Cruz gets it on the first ballot. I also see Trump's path to 1200-whatever to be pretty slim. So second, maybe even third, ballot starts to look very important. Personal opinion - any attempt to hand the nomination to non-Cruz at that point ought to be greeted with piano wire and lamp posts.
On the Democrat side: they CAN'T nominate Hillary. It's a lemming-march over the cliff, maybe she's not indicted but in that case you'd see an uprising among the national-security apparatus. I expect to see Bernie as the Dem nominee whether they like it or not.
So, hopefully Ted against probably Bernie, which is a pretty good combo.
Posted by: JEM at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (o+SC1)
82
This ruling certainly dilutes the voting power of African Americans.
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (TJCSB)
83
I'm sure you could find 535 suitable 'volunteers' under that stone dome in the malaria swamps called DC.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (nPrGV)
84
The link to the NYT is giving me a 500 error.
Posted by: L, Elle at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (2x3L+)
85
The horror of living in the shadows. Maybe if we give them more
welfare benefits, they'll bravely step into the light and discover that
they too are the complete equals of American citizens.
Equals? Equals?? As a taxpayer, I'd be thrilled to be the equal of an illegal alien. They pay no taxes, receive benefits, don't bother getting driver's licenses or auto insurance, the political elite lays awake nights looking out for them, giving them free shit, and generally defending them. And if they run afoul of the law, they skedaddle back across the border, free as a bird.
We should only be treated half as well as the average wetback.
welfare benefits, they'll bravely step into the light and discover that
they too are the complete equals of American citizens.
Equals? Equals?? As a taxpayer, I'd be thrilled to be the equal of an illegal alien. They pay no taxes, receive benefits, don't bother getting driver's licenses or auto insurance, the political elite lays awake nights looking out for them, giving them free shit, and generally defending them. And if they run afoul of the law, they skedaddle back across the border, free as a bird.
We should only be treated half as well as the average wetback.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (oKE6c)
86
*clambers up on soapbox*
Should I get you the stepladder?
Should I get you the stepladder?
Posted by: andycanuck at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (UbeIw)
87
No Representation without Taxation.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (leBig)
88
Ow! My nuts! My nuts!
Posted by: andycanuck at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (UbeIw)
89
"We need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, states may
elect to draw districts to equalize voter population instead," Ginsburg
said.
The fact that this decision was unanimous should show you that the legal argument against was spurious.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (/jecC)
The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance it probably helps team red
elect to draw districts to equalize voter population instead," Ginsburg
said.
The fact that this decision was unanimous should show you that the legal argument against was spurious.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:24 PM (/jecC)
The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance it probably helps team red
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (t06LC)
90
Sweet, still have my fancy new French Hash.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
91
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:30 PM (oKE6c)
Some animals are more equal than others.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (uURQL)
92
"Your location is rich and successful and attracts a high population
density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate
everywhere else politically"
That violates the fundamental principle of "One Man, One Vote", which has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's. It was adopted in order to do away with all the of the Jim Crow vote rigging that had characterized the previous 100 years.
I don't think you can put that toothpaste back in the tube. And I don't think we'd want to go back to Jim Crow, just on general principle.
density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate
everywhere else politically"
That violates the fundamental principle of "One Man, One Vote", which has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's. It was adopted in order to do away with all the of the Jim Crow vote rigging that had characterized the previous 100 years.
I don't think you can put that toothpaste back in the tube. And I don't think we'd want to go back to Jim Crow, just on general principle.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (/jecC)
93
This ruling certainly dilutes the voting power of African Americans.
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (TJCSB)
They do that all by themselves by mindlessly voting overwhelmingly Democratic every time
Posted by: Dr Spank at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (TJCSB)
They do that all by themselves by mindlessly voting overwhelmingly Democratic every time
Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (mw8Dm)
94
On the Democrat side: they CAN'T nominate Hillary. It's a lemming-march
over the cliff, maybe she's not indicted but in that case you'd see an
uprising among the national-security apparatus. I expect to see Bernie
as the Dem nominee whether they like it or not.
I'd like to move to your planet. It sounds very nice.
I could easily make a similar argument regarding choosing Obongo, or Ted Kennedy, as Dem candidates. And yet, they were so chosen.
over the cliff, maybe she's not indicted but in that case you'd see an
uprising among the national-security apparatus. I expect to see Bernie
as the Dem nominee whether they like it or not.
I'd like to move to your planet. It sounds very nice.
I could easily make a similar argument regarding choosing Obongo, or Ted Kennedy, as Dem candidates. And yet, they were so chosen.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (oKE6c)
95
He Democrats wanted the slaves counted too even though they couldn't vote. It gives them more power. Same racist party, different times.
Posted by: PBJ1515 at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (51ijF)
96
Maybe if we give them more welfare benefits, they'll bravely step into the light and discover that they too are the complete equals of American citizens.
_____________________
LOL. They don't want to be our equals.
They want to be our superiors. And in many ways, they already are. You and I have to file and pay federal and state income taxes every year or we'll be prosecuted; not true for illegals. You and I have to take and pass a driver's license test, and insure and register and pay property taxes on our vehicles if we want to drive our cars and trucks on U.S. roads; not true for illegals. If you or I go to a hospital ER for treatment, we'll have to provide multiple forms of ID and proof of insurance before we're seen, and if we don't pay the bill, we'll be sued by a collection agency; not true for illegals. If you or I show up at a job interview with an obviously phony ID and a made-up (or stolen) Social Security number, we'll soon be visited by LE officers and charged with crimes; if an illegal does it, LE just shrugs and looks the other way. I could go on, but you get the point.
_____________________
LOL. They don't want to be our equals.
They want to be our superiors. And in many ways, they already are. You and I have to file and pay federal and state income taxes every year or we'll be prosecuted; not true for illegals. You and I have to take and pass a driver's license test, and insure and register and pay property taxes on our vehicles if we want to drive our cars and trucks on U.S. roads; not true for illegals. If you or I go to a hospital ER for treatment, we'll have to provide multiple forms of ID and proof of insurance before we're seen, and if we don't pay the bill, we'll be sued by a collection agency; not true for illegals. If you or I show up at a job interview with an obviously phony ID and a made-up (or stolen) Social Security number, we'll soon be visited by LE officers and charged with crimes; if an illegal does it, LE just shrugs and looks the other way. I could go on, but you get the point.
Posted by: TrivialPursuer at April 04, 2016 02:33 PM (df5V4)
97
90 Sweet, still have my fancy new French Hash.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
Is that anything like Thai stick?
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
Is that anything like Thai stick?
Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2016 02:33 PM (0mRoj)
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:33 PM (0LHZx)
99
Hell, divvy it up by households, not individuals. That'd put a cork in it.
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (V40IZ)
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (rznWS)
101
This gives actual voters in districts with more ineligible inhabitants more actual voting power than voters where most residents are eligible,
False statement. Illegal aliens vote Democrat.
False statement. Illegal aliens vote Democrat.
Posted by: Ted Nugent at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (iLoHX)
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (nPrGV)
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
104
there is officially zero incentive for either party to discourage illegal immigration
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (0O7c5)
105
The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance it probably helps team red
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (t06LC)
Let's be precise in our language. The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance that Texas THINKS it probably helps team red.
Whether it does or not is another question.
Posted by: Jollyroger at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (t06LC)
Let's be precise in our language. The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance that Texas THINKS it probably helps team red.
Whether it does or not is another question.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:35 PM (oKE6c)
106
I'm a taxpayer and I demand my rights!!
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
....that'll cost ya!
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
....that'll cost ya!
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 04, 2016 02:35 PM (0O7c5)
107
Thanks JEM. I appreciate the replies - I am not TROLLING.
Posted by: Soulpatchtony at April 04, 2016 02:35 PM (m40v5)
108
Let's be precise in our language. The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance that Texas THINKS it probably helps team red.
Whether it does or not is another question.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:35 PM (oKE6c)
I think Texas thinks this helps Team Texas. I'm not sure it goes any further than that.
Whether it does or not is another question.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:35 PM (oKE6c)
I think Texas thinks this helps Team Texas. I'm not sure it goes any further than that.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (wB8Tg)
109
103 "Some animals are more equal than others."
I'm a taxpayer and I demand my rights!!
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
As a taxpayer you're a slave. Slaves have no rights.
I'm a taxpayer and I demand my rights!!
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
As a taxpayer you're a slave. Slaves have no rights.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (0mRoj)
110
It does look like the Court just kept the status quo, now that I look. A couple more seats to CA, a couple more to TX, and all the more reason to have voter ID.
Posted by: joncelli, Now 50% More Bilious! at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (v9gSJ)
111
8-0 ruling.
We truly are finished as a nation.
It's an 8-0 ruling to keep things as they have been.
Do you just like the dopamine spike of seeing Armageddon and bunched panties everywhere?
We truly are finished as a nation.
It's an 8-0 ruling to keep things as they have been.
Do you just like the dopamine spike of seeing Armageddon and bunched panties everywhere?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (1xUj/)
112
Would Scalia have made it 9-0?
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (FkBIv)
113
If elected, I promise to build a hundred foot wall around the Supreme Court.
Posted by: DONALD TRUMP at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (TJCSB)
114
I'm a taxpayer and I demand my rights!!
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
As a taxpayer you're a slave. Slaves have no rights.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (0mRoj)
We are but sheep to be shorn. Nothing more.
Posted by: Lemonade Stand father from The Little Rascals at April 04, 2016 02:34 PM (OD2ni)
As a taxpayer you're a slave. Slaves have no rights.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (0mRoj)
We are but sheep to be shorn. Nothing more.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (oKE6c)
115
I plea ignorance myself, but my neighbor down the road, who taught history of American law for 3 decades, expected this decision to be unanimous.
Districts have apparently ALWAYS been based on raw population, not the number of eligible voters. The 3/5 slave rule was the only concession ever made to the idea that it should be voters, not warm bodies.
Districts have apparently ALWAYS been based on raw population, not the number of eligible voters. The 3/5 slave rule was the only concession ever made to the idea that it should be voters, not warm bodies.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (T/5A0)
116
This is actually the status quo.... districts already count illegals as they are based on total census numbers.
What is interesting is that this was the Fed Supreme Court.. not the Texas Supreme Court.... as it had to due with Texas legislature elections and districts.
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
What is interesting is that this was the Fed Supreme Court.. not the Texas Supreme Court.... as it had to due with Texas legislature elections and districts.
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (qf6WZ)
117
I'm thinking that rather then viewing this as "what will happen now", the reality is "what's already happening now, will continue happening legally".
So the question is who is already benefiting from this type of district gerrymandering?
So the question is who is already benefiting from this type of district gerrymandering?
Posted by: Malcolm Tent at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (y3LgN)
118
Admittedly we're guessing at the long-term impact, and in a pessimistic mood.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (wB8Tg)
119
The fact that Texas wanted this tells me on balance it probably helps team red
The challengers were from Texas. The State of Texas opposed it.
The challengers were from Texas. The State of Texas opposed it.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (1xUj/)
120
Posted by: alexthechick - Destroyer of Gaia and Seductress of Savagery at April 04, 2016 02:29 PM (mf5HN)
I think they use census data so I thought kids counted...
I think they use census data so I thought kids counted...
Posted by: tsrlbke PhD(c), rogue bioethicist at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (tM4uk)
121
110 It does look like the Court just kept the status quo, now that I look. A couple more seats to CA, a couple more to TX, and all the more reason to have voter ID.
Posted by: joncelli, Now 50% More Bilious! at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (v9gSJ)
___
And fucks over Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, and those other icky fly over states.
Posted by: joncelli, Now 50% More Bilious! at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (v9gSJ)
___
And fucks over Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, and those other icky fly over states.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (0LHZx)
122
Do you just like the dopamine spike of seeing Armageddon and bunched panties everywhere?>>>
Are there pictures of the bunched panties?
Are there pictures of the bunched panties?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (P/aDH)
123
The initial lawsuit was brought to count only "registered" voters for Districts. This was a no brainer and I am not sure how it even made it to SCOTUS.
Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (iONHu)
124
@47: "It's an almost endless series of possibilities and I can see any of the
above actually happening. Do you guys have any more to add to this list?
I am going to compile a master list over time."
Shorter version of list: "No matter what happens, a statist becomes president."
above actually happening. Do you guys have any more to add to this list?
I am going to compile a master list over time."
Shorter version of list: "No matter what happens, a statist becomes president."
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (rznWS)
125
Just one more reason democrats like sanctuary cities. Load 'em up, boys.
Posted by: IrishEi at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (E6RIJ)
126
It's an 8-0 ruling to keep things as they have been.
Do you just like the dopamine spike of seeing Armageddon and bunched panties everywhere?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (1xUj/)
---
Heh.
Do you just like the dopamine spike of seeing Armageddon and bunched panties everywhere?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:36 PM (1xUj/)
---
Heh.
Posted by: SMFH while circling the drain... at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (rlfds)
127
The decision did not say that illegal must be counted, just that they may be counted without violating the Constitution. It did not decide whether a different system (where districts were apportioned by eligible voters) would or would not be permissible.
Posted by: tommylotto at April 04, 2016 02:38 PM (A3a8d)
128
Sweet, still have my fancy new French Hash.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
And it could also double as your pron name, I'm sure!
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
And it could also double as your pron name, I'm sure!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (q1FtT)
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (nPrGV)
130
@61: "Who will stand up to the globalist cabal?"
If nothing else, we offer an alternative version.
If nothing else, we offer an alternative version.
Posted by: Militant Islam at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (rznWS)
131
What is interesting is that this was the Fed Supreme Court.. not the Texas Supreme Court.... as it had to due with Texas legislature elections and districts.
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
Posted by: Don Quixote
..............
No. They only ruled on federal elections. Scalia and Alito made mention that states can interpret this differently for local elections.
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
Posted by: Don Quixote
..............
No. They only ruled on federal elections. Scalia and Alito made mention that states can interpret this differently for local elections.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (so+oy)
132
People without papers will be voting anyway so what's the big deal.
Posted by: Dave at April 04, 2016 02:40 PM (hm8tW)
133
One impact of this ruling: it encourages cities to declare themselves sanctuary cities, so as to gain more electoral clout.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:40 PM (oKE6c)
134
Also important. It creates an incentive forall districts to collect "ineligible inhabitants" since they need them to maintain or increase relative political power.
Yep. Even if you now live in an area where you reps have the best of intentions, we are going to get screwed by the system. They will be either be co opted or lose the ability to move policy due to lack of power.
Not avoidable.
Also important. It creates an incentive forall districts to collect "ineligible inhabitants" since they need them to maintain or increase relative political power.
Yep. Even if you now live in an area where you reps have the best of intentions, we are going to get screwed by the system. They will be either be co opted or lose the ability to move policy due to lack of power.
Not avoidable.
Posted by: simplemind at April 04, 2016 02:40 PM (JTwsP)
135
It looks like a rather narrow ruling to me
Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 04, 2016 02:40 PM (mw8Dm)
136
Districts have apparently ALWAYS been based on raw population, not the number of eligible voters. The 3/5 slave rule was the only concession ever made to the idea that it should be voters, not warm bodies.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (T/5A0)
The difference is that we have a large class of politically-cohesive apparently permanent non-citizens.
Which is just a bizarre situation we're in for political reasons.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 02:37 PM (T/5A0)
The difference is that we have a large class of politically-cohesive apparently permanent non-citizens.
Which is just a bizarre situation we're in for political reasons.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:40 PM (wB8Tg)
137
So are they going to extend the census to cemetaries, to catch other Dem voters?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:41 PM (oKE6c)
138
131 What is interesting is that this was the Fed Supreme Court.. not the Texas Supreme Court.... as it had to due with Texas legislature elections and districts.
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
Posted by: Don Quixote
..............
No. They only ruled on federal elections. Scalia and Alito made mention that states can interpret this differently for local elections.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (so+oy)
_____
Did you even read the article? The suit was initiated to address Texas Senate districting.
"The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, was a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate that was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. "
Or in other words... the US Supreme Court once more forgot about that whole 10th Amendment...
Posted by: Don Quixote
..............
No. They only ruled on federal elections. Scalia and Alito made mention that states can interpret this differently for local elections.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (so+oy)
_____
Did you even read the article? The suit was initiated to address Texas Senate districting.
"The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, was a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate that was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. "
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:41 PM (0LHZx)
139
At least this ruling won't end up making every district look like spaghetti on a map in order to accomplish the typical gerrymandering.
Posted by: Roy at April 04, 2016 02:41 PM (VndSC)
140
But our wise masters of the Supreme Court say that illegal aliens must be included in congressional district's numerical strength.
Well, so would any person walking through the district on the day of the survey, too, I guess. And probably every person flying through the airspace over the district on taht day.
Of course, there really shouldn't be any problem with the SCOTASS' decision on this, since any illegal that was known (in order to be counted) should be deported pretty much immediately and then "uncounted", so it should all be a wash.
As stupid and incorrect as the SCOTASS is in this case, this problem is still due to the feral government (and many states and municipalities) not doing their most basic and fundamental job to protect and defend the sovereign integrity of this nation.
Well, so would any person walking through the district on the day of the survey, too, I guess. And probably every person flying through the airspace over the district on taht day.
Of course, there really shouldn't be any problem with the SCOTASS' decision on this, since any illegal that was known (in order to be counted) should be deported pretty much immediately and then "uncounted", so it should all be a wash.
As stupid and incorrect as the SCOTASS is in this case, this problem is still due to the feral government (and many states and municipalities) not doing their most basic and fundamental job to protect and defend the sovereign integrity of this nation.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 02:41 PM (zc3Db)
141
Corinne Brown is gonna be PISSED. She was using the argument against non-voting prison populations to fight her redrawn district.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (SEXy3)
142
Why don't the justices save the time and effort of writing fancy opinions and just sign each decision with "Fuck You That's Why"
Posted by: kbdabear at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (9hYrP)
143
>>So are they going to extend the census to cemetaries, to catch other Dem voters?
Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
A Democrat.
Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
A Democrat.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (leBig)
144
The fact that it was unanimous should tell you something, Ace.
This was overreach by Texans..
While I agree that illegal immigrants should not be counted in the census, it has been long standing practice that the total population - including kids, criminals, etc. etc.. - should be included when apportioning population for districts.
This was overreach by Texans..
While I agree that illegal immigrants should not be counted in the census, it has been long standing practice that the total population - including kids, criminals, etc. etc.. - should be included when apportioning population for districts.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (so+oy)
Posted by: IP at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (aQQbl)
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (1xUj/)
147
"128 Sweet, still have my fancy new French Hash.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)"
Stay away from Turkey. Trust me.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)"
Stay away from Turkey. Trust me.
Posted by: Billy Hayes at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (OD2ni)
148
This is different from other days how?
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (nPrGV)
It's Monday, so we're pessimistic. By Wednesday we'll be hysterical and over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
Schedules are important.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (nPrGV)
It's Monday, so we're pessimistic. By Wednesday we'll be hysterical and over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
Schedules are important.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (wB8Tg)
149
Wasn't this the point of Obama taking over the Census Bureau right when he got into office? The Census is used to derive these numbers, so they wanted control of who was counted when drawing up Congressional district?
Or I may just be misremembering....
Or I may just be misremembering....
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (NOIQH)
150
142 Why don't the justices save the time and effort of writing fancy opinions and just sign each decision with "Fuck You That's Why"
Posted by: kbdabear
--------------------
Because Obama owns that pen, and SCOTUS is still working to get it.
Posted by: kbdabear
--------------------
Because Obama owns that pen, and SCOTUS is still working to get it.
Posted by: Roy at April 04, 2016 02:43 PM (VndSC)
151
So the Democrats will create Gulags for Voters? Oh, that is housing projects and cemeteries. But now HUD is spreading the Section 8 housing into the suburbs to further dilute the voting strength of taxpayers.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:43 PM (nPrGV)
152
@92; "That violates the fundamental principle of "One Man, One Vote", which
has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's."
I love "One Man, One Vote". Got me elected. Well, I guess to be technical, it was One Man, Three Votes, but still...
has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's."
I love "One Man, One Vote". Got me elected. Well, I guess to be technical, it was One Man, Three Votes, but still...
Posted by: Zombie LBJ at April 04, 2016 02:43 PM (rznWS)
153
While I agree that illegal immigrants should not be counted in the census, it has been long standing practice that the total population - including kids, criminals, etc. etc.. - should be included when apportioning population for districts.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (so+oy)
_____
And for a long time it was also long standing practice that marriage = 1 man, 1 woman. And that changed.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (so+oy)
_____
And for a long time it was also long standing practice that marriage = 1 man, 1 woman. And that changed.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:44 PM (0LHZx)
154
Yeah, I don't think remedial math is a prerequisite for the SCOTUS.
Posted by: Fritz at April 04, 2016 02:44 PM (UzPAd)
155
>>But now HUD is spreading the Section 8 housing into the suburbs to further dilute the voting strength of taxpayers.
Bingo
Bingo
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:44 PM (NOIQH)
156
Sweet, still have my fancy new French Hash.
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
And it could also double as your pron name, I'm sure!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor
Or be the opposite like calling someone "Shorty" who's 6'8"!
Posted by: garrett at April 04, 2016 02:31 PM (leBig)
And it could also double as your pron name, I'm sure!
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor
Or be the opposite like calling someone "Shorty" who's 6'8"!
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 02:44 PM (NsI03)
157
The holding was unanimous.
Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM
There were some unanimous calls for holding in the art thread, too.
Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM
There were some unanimous calls for holding in the art thread, too.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:45 PM (xuouz)
158
Did you even read the article? The suit was initiated to address Texas Senate districting.
"The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, was a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate that was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. "
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
..........
Opps.. I read an analysis on another site that totally got this wrong.. my bad.
"The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, was a challenge to voting districts for the Texas Senate that was brought by two voters, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger. "
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo
..........
Opps.. I read an analysis on another site that totally got this wrong.. my bad.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:45 PM (so+oy)
159
Incontinent Fridays? Oh dear...
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:45 PM (nPrGV)
160
so, more representation for sanctuary cities ?
Posted by: sock_rat_eez at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (gUoN4)
161
157 The holding was unanimous.
Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM
There were some unanimous calls for holding in the art thread, too.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:45 PM (xuouz)
Well, cupping, anyway.
Posted by: Ace at 02:13 PM
There were some unanimous calls for holding in the art thread, too.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:45 PM (xuouz)
Well, cupping, anyway.
Posted by: joncelli, Now 50% More Bilious! at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (v9gSJ)
162
149 Wasn't this the point of Obama taking over the Census Bureau right when he got into office? The Census is used to derive these numbers, so they wanted control of who was counted when drawing up Congressional district?
Or I may just be misremembering....
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (NOIQH)
____
That's exactly it. And to determine where to put Section 8 housing in order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows how to play the long game.
Or I may just be misremembering....
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (NOIQH)
____
That's exactly it. And to determine where to put Section 8 housing in order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows how to play the long game.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (0LHZx)
163
Why don't the justices save the time and effort of writing fancy opinions and just sign each decision with "Fuck You That's Why"
Posted by: kbdabear
BarkyCare got first dibs on the 1-800-FU1CKYO!!! help line.
Posted by: kbdabear
BarkyCare got first dibs on the 1-800-FU1CKYO!!! help line.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (zc3Db)
164
So SCOTUS said Texas "may" allow illegals to be counted. It didn't say they had to be counted, right?
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:47 PM (0LHZx)
165
Incontinent Fridays? Oh dear...
Well, you wouldn't want that on Tuesdays what with what all else goes on.
Well, you wouldn't want that on Tuesdays what with what all else goes on.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:47 PM (1xUj/)
166
>>> Congress could, you know, do its job and pass laws that explain things.
****
I thought that Congress only named post offices and passed continuing resolutions and debt increases anymore? All other duties/ powers have been ceded to unelected agencies and the Executive branch, right?
Oh wait... the President can now unilaterally increase the debt limit. Strike that part. Thanks Republican Congressional Majorities!
****
I thought that Congress only named post offices and passed continuing resolutions and debt increases anymore? All other duties/ powers have been ceded to unelected agencies and the Executive branch, right?
Oh wait... the President can now unilaterally increase the debt limit. Strike that part. Thanks Republican Congressional Majorities!
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 02:47 PM (XItbt)
167
At this point, the economic numbers coming out of Moscow bear more resemblance to reality than any numbers touted or promulgated from Washington DC.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:48 PM (nPrGV)
168
"Am I right that illegals get counted in the census for apportionment purposes? i.e. CA gets more Congressional representation because it has more Illegals than most states"
If I'm right this is a much bigger issue, and is distinct from what SCOTUS just ruled on. The Founders couldn't have foreseen the US having 25 million Illegals that would tip the scales over how many Congresscritters CA would get relative to states like NE.
If I'm right this is a much bigger issue, and is distinct from what SCOTUS just ruled on. The Founders couldn't have foreseen the US having 25 million Illegals that would tip the scales over how many Congresscritters CA would get relative to states like NE.
Posted by: Ignoramus at April 04, 2016 02:48 PM (r1fLd)
169
This is different from other days how?
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (nPrGV)
It's Monday, so we're pessimistic. By Wednesday we'll be hysterical and over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
Schedules are important.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (wB8Tg)
What's the schedule for false hope and crushing depression?
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:39 PM (nPrGV)
It's Monday, so we're pessimistic. By Wednesday we'll be hysterical and over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
Schedules are important.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (wB8Tg)
What's the schedule for false hope and crushing depression?
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (uURQL)
170
The Founders also never envisioned the House passing a law limiting the number of seats to 435 either I bet.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (nPrGV)
171
It's Monday, so we're pessimistic. By Wednesday we'll be hysterical and
over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
I'm usually gibberingly incontinent on Thursday so I can take Friday off. It's nice to have the long weekend.
over-wrought, and gibberingly incontinent by Friday morning.
I'm usually gibberingly incontinent on Thursday so I can take Friday off. It's nice to have the long weekend.
Posted by: Blanco Basura at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (4WhSY)
172
Isn't there Constitutional precedent for this in the 3/5 compromise. I'm sure black slaves didn't get to vote, but they were counted in at a 3/5th rate for districting purposes.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (gUBMA)
173
it has been long standing practice that the total
population - including kids, criminals, etc. etc.. - should be included
when apportioning population for districts.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (so+oy)
So I say again re cemetaries: if you're counting children and criminals, why not count all Democrats?
population - including kids, criminals, etc. etc.. - should be included
when apportioning population for districts.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (so+oy)
So I say again re cemetaries: if you're counting children and criminals, why not count all Democrats?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (oKE6c)
174
Saturday is False Hope because weekend.
Sunday is Crushing Depression because Monday is lurking to knee-cap you.
Sunday is Crushing Depression because Monday is lurking to knee-cap you.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:50 PM (nPrGV)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 04, 2016 02:50 PM (ODxAs)
176
What's the schedule for false hope and crushing depression?
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (uURQL)
Matrimony.
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (uURQL)
Matrimony.
Posted by: OregonMuse at April 04, 2016 02:50 PM (PpNN2)
177
Just got a text from T-Mobile about getting in that Obamaphone action.
Universal Suffrage is stupid.
Universal Suffrage is stupid.
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 02:50 PM (V40IZ)
178
Montana sued the federal govt over this a while back and lost.
SCOTUS told the state to fuck off in 1992
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/503/442.html
SCOTUS told the state to fuck off in 1992
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/503/442.html
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:51 PM (0LHZx)
179
Illegal aliens, also known as foreign citizens.
These foreign citizens have no right to "representation."
Illegal aliens, also known as foreign citizens.
These foreign citizens have no right to "representation."
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 02:51 PM (ro1q5)
Posted by: IP at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (aQQbl)
181
>>>> What's the schedule for false hope and crushing depression?
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (uURQL)
-----
Oh, false hope and crushing depression are reserved only for days ending in the letter "Y"
Posted by: ReactionaryMonster Bravely supporting kittens at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (uURQL)
-----
Oh, false hope and crushing depression are reserved only for days ending in the letter "Y"
Posted by: L, Elle at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (2x3L+)
182
92 "Your location is rich and successful and attracts a high population
density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate
everywhere else politically"
That violates the fundamental principle of "One Man, One Vote", which has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's. It was adopted in order to do away with all the of the Jim Crow vote rigging that had characterized the previous 100 years.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (/jecC)
--------------------
Actually I think SCOTUS's "one-man, one-vote" decision was probably the most flagrantly unconstitutional ruling ever made, since it was made to apply to SENATES in the states.
The US Constitution enshrines the rightness of a second chamber based on traditional geographical lines, irrespective of population. Wyoming gets 2 senators just as California does. That is so sacred that it cannot even be amended away without the consent of the particular states affected.
You can say that the old Virginia constitution was quite wicked because it gave one senator to Isolated Mountain County and one to the City of Richmond, but it sure as hell was not contrary to the US Constitution.
density? Good for you. That doesn't give you the right to dominate
everywhere else politically"
That violates the fundamental principle of "One Man, One Vote", which has been the backbone of US Civil Rights Law since the 60's. It was adopted in order to do away with all the of the Jim Crow vote rigging that had characterized the previous 100 years.
Posted by: Tom Servo at April 04, 2016 02:32 PM (/jecC)
--------------------
Actually I think SCOTUS's "one-man, one-vote" decision was probably the most flagrantly unconstitutional ruling ever made, since it was made to apply to SENATES in the states.
The US Constitution enshrines the rightness of a second chamber based on traditional geographical lines, irrespective of population. Wyoming gets 2 senators just as California does. That is so sacred that it cannot even be amended away without the consent of the particular states affected.
You can say that the old Virginia constitution was quite wicked because it gave one senator to Isolated Mountain County and one to the City of Richmond, but it sure as hell was not contrary to the US Constitution.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (T/5A0)
183
This case was about state legislative districts, not congressional districts.
Posted by: Actual stalks of fucking corn at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (0d7v8)
184
"The holding was unanimous."
Of course. With Scalia gone, we don't even bother to pretend that we have any intellectual integrity.
Of course. With Scalia gone, we don't even bother to pretend that we have any intellectual integrity.
Posted by: Your Betters on the U.S. Supreme Court at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (laMCB)
185
"And if they run afoul of the law, they skedaddle back across the border, free as a bird."
Around these parts these days, beat cops often just immediately release illegals without citing them, when it's a "nonviolent" offense.
Where "nonviolent" includes property theft up into the thousands of dollars.
Around these parts these days, beat cops often just immediately release illegals without citing them, when it's a "nonviolent" offense.
Where "nonviolent" includes property theft up into the thousands of dollars.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (noWW6)
186
How about a 3/2 compromise where the eligible voter is counted as 3/2 person. We can come full circle in starting a civil war.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (KEA7I)
187
Even more interesting...
It seems that the Districts were drawn by a Federal Court in the first place, then adopted by the Legislature (because they pretty much had to)...
Thus the Supremes backed up the POWER of a lower court, to dictate to the Legislature.
How... predictable...
It seems that the Districts were drawn by a Federal Court in the first place, then adopted by the Legislature (because they pretty much had to)...
Thus the Supremes backed up the POWER of a lower court, to dictate to the Legislature.
How... predictable...
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 02:53 PM (qf6WZ)
188
Children should be represented in elections by the informed votes of their parents.
Illegals should be represented at deportation hearings by their guilty pleas of their attorneys.
It's all equal.
Illegals should be represented at deportation hearings by their guilty pleas of their attorneys.
It's all equal.
Posted by: Captain Oblivious at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (UwQ7q)
Posted by: @votermom at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (nbrY/)
190
So, soon there will be a new case demanding citizenship for all those who are counted.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (mR7Es)
191
Wasn't this the point of Obama taking over the Census Bureau right when he got into office? The Census is used to derive these numbers, so they wanted control of who was counted when drawing up Congressional district?
Or I may just be misremembering....
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (NOIQH)
____
That's exactly it. And to determine where to put Section 8 housing in order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows how to play the long game.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (0LHZx)
Phoney baloney census, phoney baloney jobs numbers, ID required for OTC cough medicine but not voting or signing up for sweet, sweet government cash hand outs. Primaries decided by card tricks and coin flips...
Yeah, voting is totally above board. Your vote matters!...
...almost as much as the illegals, the 2 dozen dead people who live at the empty lot, and the bus loads of college students and other transients that magically appear in the "correct" districts.
Or I may just be misremembering....
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:42 PM (NOIQH)
____
That's exactly it. And to determine where to put Section 8 housing in order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows how to play the long game.
Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at April 04, 2016 02:46 PM (0LHZx)
Phoney baloney census, phoney baloney jobs numbers, ID required for OTC cough medicine but not voting or signing up for sweet, sweet government cash hand outs. Primaries decided by card tricks and coin flips...
Yeah, voting is totally above board. Your vote matters!...
...almost as much as the illegals, the 2 dozen dead people who live at the empty lot, and the bus loads of college students and other transients that magically appear in the "correct" districts.
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 02:55 PM (XItbt)
192
>>That's exactly it. And to determine where to put Section 8 housing in
order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows
how to play the long game.
And IIRC, it wasn't covered in the news w/much fanfare.
There was some mention on blogs, but Obama was doing so many things those first few months (remember all those czars?) that it got lost.
But it is a Big Deal that the tool used to *count* these people has been controlled by a partisan entity - the WH - since 2009.
order to destroy any non-compliant areas of the country. The left knows
how to play the long game.
And IIRC, it wasn't covered in the news w/much fanfare.
There was some mention on blogs, but Obama was doing so many things those first few months (remember all those czars?) that it got lost.
But it is a Big Deal that the tool used to *count* these people has been controlled by a partisan entity - the WH - since 2009.
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 02:55 PM (NOIQH)
193
So, soon there will be a new case demanding citizenship for all those who are counted.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (mR7Es)
This is already de facto the law, as the full-throated opposition to voter ID laws demonstrates.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (mR7Es)
This is already de facto the law, as the full-throated opposition to voter ID laws demonstrates.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (xuouz)
194
Counting everybody, forieign and American, gives Dems a huge electoral college advantage as well as more US Reps.
The next battle will be to stop the Court from giving voing rights to the whole freaking world. That's why George Will and others are wrong about giving the Supremes a new playmate. We're in a life or death struggle for the Republic and they're still playing "My Esteemed Colleague..."
It's quaint. It's charming. And it's deadly.
The next battle will be to stop the Court from giving voing rights to the whole freaking world. That's why George Will and others are wrong about giving the Supremes a new playmate. We're in a life or death struggle for the Republic and they're still playing "My Esteemed Colleague..."
It's quaint. It's charming. And it's deadly.
Posted by: The Wolf Who Cried Boy at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (CMuK0)
195
"Just got a text from T-Mobile about getting in that Obamaphone action."
The corporate donor class are perfectly okay with money being taken out of the pockets of the serf class, to provide free shit to the moocher class, just so long as the corporate donor class themselves turn a tidy profit in the course of the transfer.
That's why the establishment Republicans are silent about Obama's hugely costly new expansion of broadband Internet as a free benefit and fundamental human right. It's because the establishment's corporate donors are going to get a bunch of new customers, with someone else forced to pick up the tab.
The corporate donor class are perfectly okay with money being taken out of the pockets of the serf class, to provide free shit to the moocher class, just so long as the corporate donor class themselves turn a tidy profit in the course of the transfer.
That's why the establishment Republicans are silent about Obama's hugely costly new expansion of broadband Internet as a free benefit and fundamental human right. It's because the establishment's corporate donors are going to get a bunch of new customers, with someone else forced to pick up the tab.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (noWW6)
196
Another misleading headline from the NYT. How does one start one's own Republic?
Gad, these people annoy me,
Gad, these people annoy me,
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (laMCB)
Posted by: Bruce With a Wang! at April 04, 2016 02:57 PM (iQIUe)
198
"We need not and do not resolve," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for six justices, whether "states may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population."
This is a "may", not a "must" as the post states.
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
This is a "may", not a "must" as the post states.
Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (1xUj/)
199
We're not a country anymore. We live in a goddam international mall.
So sick of our lobbyist government.
We're not a country anymore. We live in a goddam international mall.
So sick of our lobbyist government.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (ro1q5)
200
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 02:55 PM (XItbt)
Their plan to take over the suburbs is genius. I'll summarize for those not familiar. Urban areas vote Democrat something like 80% or higher, but suburbs vote Republican roughly 60% or lower. This means that if they can just move 20% of urbanites into the suburbs they will take them over electorally, and yet maintain comfortable majorities in urban areas.
Their plan to take over the suburbs is genius. I'll summarize for those not familiar. Urban areas vote Democrat something like 80% or higher, but suburbs vote Republican roughly 60% or lower. This means that if they can just move 20% of urbanites into the suburbs they will take them over electorally, and yet maintain comfortable majorities in urban areas.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 02:59 PM (gUBMA)
201
So, soon there will be a new case demanding citizenship for all those who are counted.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (mR7Es)
This is already de facto the law, as the full-throated opposition to voter ID laws demonstrates.
Said that upthread. Same as with giving illegals some kind of legal status but not citizenship.
As soon as you do, someone will sue for citizenship.
And win.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (mR7Es)
This is already de facto the law, as the full-throated opposition to voter ID laws demonstrates.
Said that upthread. Same as with giving illegals some kind of legal status but not citizenship.
As soon as you do, someone will sue for citizenship.
And win.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 02:59 PM (NsI03)
202
They should rename the free broadband Victory Broadband.
Y'know, like Victory Gin, to keep people home, placated, and out of trouble.
Y'know, like Victory Gin, to keep people home, placated, and out of trouble.
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 02:59 PM (V40IZ)
203
"It seems that the Districts were drawn by a Federal Court in the
first place, then adopted by the Legislature (because they pretty much
had to)... Thus the Supremes backed up the POWER of a lower court, to dictate to the Legislature."
I used to think the idea of amending the Constitution to allow for overrides of federal court decisions, and of making federal judges recallable, was crazy extremist talk.
Now? I am on board that train, baby. And I'm laying in fresh sacks of feathers and some new barrels of tar.
first place, then adopted by the Legislature (because they pretty much
had to)... Thus the Supremes backed up the POWER of a lower court, to dictate to the Legislature."
I used to think the idea of amending the Constitution to allow for overrides of federal court decisions, and of making federal judges recallable, was crazy extremist talk.
Now? I am on board that train, baby. And I'm laying in fresh sacks of feathers and some new barrels of tar.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (noWW6)
204
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (1xUj/)
----------
Apparently: YES
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (1xUj/)
----------
Apparently: YES
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (NUqwG)
205
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
Who's we?
This has been an ongoing issue for a long time. You belong at Democrat Underground or Kos with your Leftist friends.
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
Who's we?
This has been an ongoing issue for a long time. You belong at Democrat Underground or Kos with your Leftist friends.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (ro1q5)
206
If illegals started taking journalist, actor, judicial, banker, CEO, and politician jobs, you'd see that wall go up overnight and round the clock deportation flights.
Posted by: kbdabear at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (9hYrP)
207
170 The Founders also never envisioned the House passing a law limiting the number of seats to 435 either I bet.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (nPrGV)
--------------------
Heh.
It's a joke. A nation of 320,000,000 run by 535 goons --- and a dominant political ideology that insists that they are supposed to decide every little detail about our lives.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (nPrGV)
--------------------
Heh.
It's a joke. A nation of 320,000,000 run by 535 goons --- and a dominant political ideology that insists that they are supposed to decide every little detail about our lives.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (T/5A0)
208
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (1xUj/)
----------
Apparently: YES
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (NUqwG)
You misspelled OBVIOUSLY
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 02:58 PM (1xUj/)
----------
Apparently: YES
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (NUqwG)
You misspelled OBVIOUSLY
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (xuouz)
209
Isn't there Constitutional precedent for this in the 3/5 compromise. I'm sure black slaves didn't get to vote, but they were counted in at a 3/5th rate for districting purposes.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (gUBMA)
They didn't get to vote but they weren't illegally present. Lots of actual citizens don't have the right to vote.
As I wrote before, the basic assumption was that those here illegally would be summarily ejected and, therefore, not even worth the bother of considering for census counting - the same way that people traversing through an area are not counted even though they may well be present for the time the counting is taking place.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 02:49 PM (gUBMA)
They didn't get to vote but they weren't illegally present. Lots of actual citizens don't have the right to vote.
As I wrote before, the basic assumption was that those here illegally would be summarily ejected and, therefore, not even worth the bother of considering for census counting - the same way that people traversing through an area are not counted even though they may well be present for the time the counting is taking place.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (zc3Db)
210
We are at the point where states are going to just have to start ignoring these rulings. The left already does this. In fact, that is how they just de facto did away with our immigration laws in their entirety. The courts just came along and tried to legitimize it after the fact because; 1 - they agreed with the goal and 2 - they did not want to look powerless.
We really would be better off at this point to drop the whole pretense of having a republic. We win nothing this way.
We really would be better off at this point to drop the whole pretense of having a republic. We win nothing this way.
Posted by: Thatch at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (pBZp4)
211
It's because the establishment's corporate donors are going to get a bunch of new customers, with someone else forced to pick up the tab.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (noWW6)
^^^This...is why the middle class is constantly getting screwed.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (noWW6)
^^^This...is why the middle class is constantly getting screwed.
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at April 04, 2016 03:02 PM (laMCB)
212
This has been an ongoing issue for a long time. You belong at Democrat Underground or Kos with your Leftist friends.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (ro1q5)
lol yeah let's tar and feather Bandersnatch.
Hmm...
It has been a while since we had a good tarring and feathering.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (ro1q5)
lol yeah let's tar and feather Bandersnatch.
Hmm...
It has been a while since we had a good tarring and feathering.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:02 PM (xuouz)
213
I can't get all riled up about this until the bathroom issue is resolved here in NC. Whew, sleepless nights.
Posted by: nckate at April 04, 2016 03:03 PM (A/qli)
214
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 02:52 PM (T/5A0)
THIS.
Thank you education system for spending the last several decades teaching fundamental misunderstandings like, "we live in a Democracy", gross misunderstanding of the electoral college, and "the 3/5 clause was because everyone was a racist".
Welcome to our Democratic Socialist Utopia, citizens! You will all be ruled by the petulant whims of NY and CA while Texas's high population is nullified because everyone who lives here is deemed a racist under the law and cannot be trusted with voting or arranging our own districts like those other "enlightened" states.
THIS.
Thank you education system for spending the last several decades teaching fundamental misunderstandings like, "we live in a Democracy", gross misunderstanding of the electoral college, and "the 3/5 clause was because everyone was a racist".
Welcome to our Democratic Socialist Utopia, citizens! You will all be ruled by the petulant whims of NY and CA while Texas's high population is nullified because everyone who lives here is deemed a racist under the law and cannot be trusted with voting or arranging our own districts like those other "enlightened" states.
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:03 PM (XItbt)
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 03:03 PM (mR7Es)
216
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled 8 - 0, but they ruled on the question put to them, so they didn't have much of a choice.
They actually ruled correctly.
Now that this is out of the way, some group can bring a suit to limit the congressional districts to eligible voters and legal citizens.
That's how this shit works.
They actually ruled correctly.
Now that this is out of the way, some group can bring a suit to limit the congressional districts to eligible voters and legal citizens.
That's how this shit works.
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:03 PM (Zs4uk)
217
This strikes me as all or nothing bullshit. As described, so-called 'sanctuary cities' that are intent on inflicting ruin on the entire country will son gain more political leverage to pursue their idiocy and inflict it on everybody.
We did away with slavery and fractional citizen proxy voting a long, long, long time ago. This left children as the great majority of ineligible to vote citizens and it was understood that their parents or guardians had their interests in mind when voting.
Ann Coulter can get a bit hard to take at times but it appears her last book, 'Adios America!', is spot on in its thesis that the Immigration Act of 1965 was purely a bid for political power.
We did away with slavery and fractional citizen proxy voting a long, long, long time ago. This left children as the great majority of ineligible to vote citizens and it was understood that their parents or guardians had their interests in mind when voting.
Ann Coulter can get a bit hard to take at times but it appears her last book, 'Adios America!', is spot on in its thesis that the Immigration Act of 1965 was purely a bid for political power.
Posted by: Epobirs at April 04, 2016 03:04 PM (IdCqF)
218
>>This means that if they can just move 20% of urbanites into the suburbs
they will take them over electorally, and yet maintain comfortable
majorities in urban areas.
Think this also helps in getting access to suburban tax revenue. Like Chicago and Detroit, they run out (overspending and graft) of money and they need to tap the suburbs without the hassle of their representatives (state of federal level) pushing back.
they will take them over electorally, and yet maintain comfortable
majorities in urban areas.
Think this also helps in getting access to suburban tax revenue. Like Chicago and Detroit, they run out (overspending and graft) of money and they need to tap the suburbs without the hassle of their representatives (state of federal level) pushing back.
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 03:04 PM (NOIQH)
219
They're representing me but I don't get to vote?! How is that supposed to work?
Posted by: Illegal Is Just Another Word For Nothin' Left To Lose at April 04, 2016 03:04 PM (3U4+k)
220
This has been an ongoing issue for a long time. You belong at Democrat Underground or Kos with your Leftist friends.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (ro1q5)
I'm sorry, hysterically overwrought has now been moved back to Monday Afternoon. Sorry for the schedule change.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (ro1q5)
I'm sorry, hysterically overwrought has now been moved back to Monday Afternoon. Sorry for the schedule change.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 03:04 PM (wB8Tg)
221
Aren't a fair number of these migratory? Following the harvests?
what about people here on vacation?
what about people here on vacation?
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at April 04, 2016 03:05 PM (PNcou)
222
Do we get counted too?
Posted by: Fetuses at April 04, 2016 03:05 PM (PNcou)
223
I used to think the idea of amending the Constitution to allow for overrides of federal court decisions, and of making federal judges recallable, was crazy extremist talk.
Now? I am on board that train, baby. And I'm laying in fresh sacks of feathers and some new barrels of tar.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (noWW6)
almost every problem I have with government over reach could have been countered by a strict reading of the Constitution.... but was NOT by the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade? Kelo? Gay Marriage? Obamacare? Voting Rights Act? EPA Regulations? Dual Citizenship? Illegals getting Government Benefits?
Hell.... even Gun Control Laws....
All things taken out of the Political Arena by Court Decree.... not political persuasion...
I used to think the idea of amending the Constitution to allow for overrides of federal court decisions, and of making federal judges recallable, was crazy extremist talk.
Now? I am on board that train, baby. And I'm laying in fresh sacks of feathers and some new barrels of tar.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 03:00 PM (noWW6)
almost every problem I have with government over reach could have been countered by a strict reading of the Constitution.... but was NOT by the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade? Kelo? Gay Marriage? Obamacare? Voting Rights Act? EPA Regulations? Dual Citizenship? Illegals getting Government Benefits?
Hell.... even Gun Control Laws....
All things taken out of the Political Arena by Court Decree.... not political persuasion...
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:05 PM (qf6WZ)
224
Posted by: intellectual nudity
You have a familiar style but I can't place which troll you used to be.
You have a familiar style but I can't place which troll you used to be.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 03:05 PM (1xUj/)
225
I thought illegals live in the shadows and all that.
Our estimates come with a money-back guarantee, Dems. When you purchase a population number, it stays bought.
Our estimates come with a money-back guarantee, Dems. When you purchase a population number, it stays bought.
Posted by: The Census Bureau at April 04, 2016 03:06 PM (3U4+k)
Posted by: @votermom at April 04, 2016 03:06 PM (nbrY/)
227
We really would be better off at this point to drop the whole pretense of having a republic. We win nothing this way.
Posted by: Thatch at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (pBZp4)
This is what the establishment doesn't realize. They are un-training us to obey the law. Let's not forget who the Europeans(us) are. We're the original barbarians, and it took a lot to teach us the importance of laws, and now we've got an elite class that wants to throw all that away. This doesn't end well, but the smart people have known this for a while.
Posted by: Thatch at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (pBZp4)
This is what the establishment doesn't realize. They are un-training us to obey the law. Let's not forget who the Europeans(us) are. We're the original barbarians, and it took a lot to teach us the importance of laws, and now we've got an elite class that wants to throw all that away. This doesn't end well, but the smart people have known this for a while.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:07 PM (gUBMA)
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:07 PM (3ZtZW)
229
>>>TWD finale post on my blog, for those who wanna talk walkers
Posted by: @votermom at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (nbrY/)<<<
Run, Corrral, the walkers are overrunning the polling places!
Posted by: @votermom at April 04, 2016 02:54 PM (nbrY/)<<<
Run, Corrral, the walkers are overrunning the polling places!
Posted by: Rick Grimes at April 04, 2016 03:07 PM (H9MG5)
230
This is nothing new except that each illegal counts as one person instead of 3/5ths.
Posted by: mugiwara at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (s1SXz)
231
Folks, go read the thing...
Ace didn't bother to give the whole story. Any one of us would have ruled the same way, given what the case is.
There is nothing stopping a new ruling that narrows things down to exclude illegals.
Ace didn't bother to give the whole story. Any one of us would have ruled the same way, given what the case is.
There is nothing stopping a new ruling that narrows things down to exclude illegals.
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (Zs4uk)
232
I guess according to Ace that now even Clarence Thomas and Alito have become 'the Establishment', RINOS, the Elite. The horror, the horror...
This kind of knee jerk "our masters" rhetoric has begotten us the likes of Trump.
This kind of knee jerk "our masters" rhetoric has begotten us the likes of Trump.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (MpfHK)
233
> 33
Why even bother being a citizen anymore when you can be an illegal and
reap all of the benefits being a citizen? Including in some cases, the
ability to vote.
Posted by: Old Blue
imo, any person that immigrates to the USA, legally or illegally, and, then proceeds to wave a foreign flag while protesting their "rights", does not want to be a citizen. They want the benefits, NOT the allegiance.
Why even bother being a citizen anymore when you can be an illegal and
reap all of the benefits being a citizen? Including in some cases, the
ability to vote.
Posted by: Old Blue
imo, any person that immigrates to the USA, legally or illegally, and, then proceeds to wave a foreign flag while protesting their "rights", does not want to be a citizen. They want the benefits, NOT the allegiance.
Posted by: cind at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (nRbbW)
234
It's a joke. A nation of 320,000,000 run by 535 goons --- and a dominant political ideology that insists that they are supposed to decide every little detail about our lives.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (T/5A0)
That'd be preferable to the reality.
You are only permitted to vote for one of the two approved parties, comrade. All other parties, ideas, and candidates will be excluded from all media, debates, and ballots. All citizens will be instructed that any talk or support of another party is "stupid" and doomed to failure.
Once elected, your "representative" will be whipped to vote with the party (with occasional exceptions where the vote is already decided and it benefits the party during an election year to show that a particular candidate voted in opposition).
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (T/5A0)
That'd be preferable to the reality.
You are only permitted to vote for one of the two approved parties, comrade. All other parties, ideas, and candidates will be excluded from all media, debates, and ballots. All citizens will be instructed that any talk or support of another party is "stupid" and doomed to failure.
Once elected, your "representative" will be whipped to vote with the party (with occasional exceptions where the vote is already decided and it benefits the party during an election year to show that a particular candidate voted in opposition).
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (XItbt)
235
*Waves to Anna*
As Mondays go, I've had worse. It's a cloudless 76 degrees and my orchids and pikake are in bloom.
Now just going thru my syllabus for Transmedia Writing.
As Mondays go, I've had worse. It's a cloudless 76 degrees and my orchids and pikake are in bloom.
Now just going thru my syllabus for Transmedia Writing.
Posted by: SMFH while circling the drain... at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (rlfds)
236
195---That's why the establishment Republicans are silent about Obama's hugely costly new expansion of broadband Internet as a free benefit and fundamental human right. It's because the establishment's corporate donors are going to get a bunch of new customers, with someone else forced to pick up the tab.
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (noWW6)
-----------
Ha!
My son just asked me why Dairy Queen sundaes, McDonald's fries, and Coca Cola can be bought with food stamps when our betters keep saying they are baaaad for us.
Golly. You think somebody makes money from it?!?
Posted by: torquewrench at April 04, 2016 02:56 PM (noWW6)
-----------
Ha!
My son just asked me why Dairy Queen sundaes, McDonald's fries, and Coca Cola can be bought with food stamps when our betters keep saying they are baaaad for us.
Golly. You think somebody makes money from it?!?
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (T/5A0)
237
Ace didn't bother to give the whole story.
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (Zs4uk)
Well, HA shot itself in the foot, *somebody* had to pick up that torch and run with it!
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:08 PM (Zs4uk)
Well, HA shot itself in the foot, *somebody* had to pick up that torch and run with it!
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (wB8Tg)
238
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:01 PM (zc3Db)
Hi big guy. Long time no see, and yes that is an important distinction, but not sure the court thinks it is.
Hi big guy. Long time no see, and yes that is an important distinction, but not sure the court thinks it is.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (gUBMA)
239
An agency in DC decides how many illegals a district has. We no longer have anything approaching rule of law.
Posted by: they make it up at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (I0sxh)
240
I haven't read all the comments so someone may have already noted this, but Ace's headline is completely wrong. The Court's unanimous holding (two justices concurred in the holding but not the argument) was that the Constitution does not *require* apportionment on the basis of eligible voters as opposed to total population. The SC specifically did NOT rule that states must apportion on the basis of total population. This is the correct decision - the Constitution does not mandate a particular form of apportionment. It also does not mandate the one-person-one-vote principle (which is a bit of judicial-made law that is completely nonsensical, given the Senate's apportionment), as Justice Thomas made clear in his concurrence. D.GOOCH
Posted by: GOOCH at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM (cxLzw)
241
This kind of knee jerk "our masters" rhetoric has begotten us the likes of Trump.
====
STAR BELLIES SUXXOR
====
STAR BELLIES SUXXOR
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM (3ZtZW)
242
The State Media is saying the Supreme Court refused a challenge to one man, one vote in this case.
Of course what they actually did was approve of the same logic as was in the 3/5ths compromise, which is the opposite of one man, one vote.
Looking at CA, for example, the state population is about 39M. Something like 4M are illegals. So each CA citizen is nominally getting to vote 1.1 times.
In actuality of course, a significant percentage of those illegals are voting as well.
Of course what they actually did was approve of the same logic as was in the 3/5ths compromise, which is the opposite of one man, one vote.
Looking at CA, for example, the state population is about 39M. Something like 4M are illegals. So each CA citizen is nominally getting to vote 1.1 times.
In actuality of course, a significant percentage of those illegals are voting as well.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM (X7E8f)
243
If Republicans had any guts, they would already have determined that the apportionment of congressional representation across states would be determined by the number of citizens only, excluding both illegal and legal aliens.
Posted by: My Ridiculously Circuitous Plan at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (FohCt)
244
168
"Am I right that illegals get counted in the census for apportionment
purposes? i.e. CA gets more Congressional representation because it has
more Illegals than most states"
If I'm right this is a much bigger issue, and is distinct from what
SCOTUS just ruled on. The Founders couldn't have foreseen the US having
25 million Illegals that would tip the scales over how many
Congresscritters CA would get relative to states like NE.
Posted by: Ignoramus at April 04, 2016 02:48 PM (r1fLd)
*******************
Ignoramus is right. This is about a state's ability to draw districts if it chooses (it is NOT mandatory, Ace -- you really need to fix your teaser) that include nonvoters, not about apportionment of representatives.
There are a lot of nonvoters in a district -- children and felons, for example, and people who just aren't registered. At the time of the Constitution, slaves didn't vote either, nor did Indians who did pay taxes, nor did women. But all those bodies (3/5 in the case of slaves, and all the women and children) counted for purposes of allocation. That is why it is the federal government's job to count people, all the people, because the states had an obvious incentive to overcount.
At the time of the Constitution, no one dreamed that the federal government would have any role in saying how a state would draw districts within its borders. That all ended in 1865, where the federal government took upon itself the responsibility for ensuring that representation was fair for the former adult male slaves. Not so much for the women, and the Indians, etc., but that came later.
This is not a revolutionary decision OMG ELEVENTY!!! This is common sense. And it is not mandatory.Now, if the Census Bureau wants to start counting people using statistical methods rather than counting actual heads, that is already contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
"Am I right that illegals get counted in the census for apportionment
purposes? i.e. CA gets more Congressional representation because it has
more Illegals than most states"
If I'm right this is a much bigger issue, and is distinct from what
SCOTUS just ruled on. The Founders couldn't have foreseen the US having
25 million Illegals that would tip the scales over how many
Congresscritters CA would get relative to states like NE.
Posted by: Ignoramus at April 04, 2016 02:48 PM (r1fLd)
*******************
Ignoramus is right. This is about a state's ability to draw districts if it chooses (it is NOT mandatory, Ace -- you really need to fix your teaser) that include nonvoters, not about apportionment of representatives.
There are a lot of nonvoters in a district -- children and felons, for example, and people who just aren't registered. At the time of the Constitution, slaves didn't vote either, nor did Indians who did pay taxes, nor did women. But all those bodies (3/5 in the case of slaves, and all the women and children) counted for purposes of allocation. That is why it is the federal government's job to count people, all the people, because the states had an obvious incentive to overcount.
At the time of the Constitution, no one dreamed that the federal government would have any role in saying how a state would draw districts within its borders. That all ended in 1865, where the federal government took upon itself the responsibility for ensuring that representation was fair for the former adult male slaves. Not so much for the women, and the Indians, etc., but that came later.
This is not a revolutionary decision OMG ELEVENTY!!! This is common sense. And it is not mandatory.Now, if the Census Bureau wants to start counting people using statistical methods rather than counting actual heads, that is already contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (5f5bM)
245
Well, if we started evenly distributing illegals throughout the country evenly, it wouldn't be a problem.
Geez you wingnutz are dumb.
/sarc
Geez you wingnutz are dumb.
/sarc
Posted by: Chupacabra at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (V40IZ)
246
should be divided by equal numbers of taxpayers. freeloaders should not have a voice. you want a voice, get off the dole.
Posted by: talgus at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (vwHnd)
247
@203: "And I'm laying in fresh sacks of feathers and some new barrels of tar."
Yeah, but we know you'll never use any of it.
Yeah, but we know you'll never use any of it.
Posted by: THe Powers That Be at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (rznWS)
248
Ace didn't bother to give the whole story.
====
Ace only reads the headlines ---- Just.Like.You.
====
Ace only reads the headlines ---- Just.Like.You.
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (3ZtZW)
249
The effect of this has been in CA to create "Rotten boroughs" where a few thousand votes--or less, can swing an election.
Jane Harmon (D-of course) won narrowly this way.
Jane Harmon (D-of course) won narrowly this way.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (ujg0T)
250
As Mondays go, I've had worse. It's a cloudless 76 degrees and my orchids and pikake are in bloom.
79.. Sunny. Headed to 84. Lawn mowing day after work.
79.. Sunny. Headed to 84. Lawn mowing day after work.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (NsI03)
251
come out of the shadows and be counted in the TRUMP CENSUS.
Posted by: x at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (nFwvY)
252
I can see counting non eligible / no registered voters if they are citizens. Counting illegal aliens is ludicrous. The only person that should be representing them is a deportation attorney.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (KEA7I)
253
I haven't read all the comments so someone may have already noted this, but Ace's headline is completely wrong. The Court's unanimous holding (two justices concurred in the holding but not the argument) was that the Constitution does not *require* apportionment on the basis of eligible voters as opposed to total population. The SC specifically did NOT rule that states must apportion on the basis of total population. This is the correct decision - the Constitution does not mandate a particular form of apportionment. It also does not mandate the one-person-one-vote principle (which is a bit of judicial-made law that is completely nonsensical, given the Senate's apportionment), as Justice Thomas made clear in his concurrence. D.GOOCH
Posted by: GOOCH at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM (cxLzw)
yes that is how I read it also...I only reviewed it fast and I am sure I missed things and I am not a Lawyer, but this did not seem like much of contentious decision. And certainly not one to go ballistic over
Posted by: GOOCH at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM (cxLzw)
yes that is how I read it also...I only reviewed it fast and I am sure I missed things and I am not a Lawyer, but this did not seem like much of contentious decision. And certainly not one to go ballistic over
Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (mw8Dm)
254
@07: "It's a joke. A nation of 320,000,000 run by 535 goons --- and a
dominant political ideology that insists that they are supposed to
decide every little detail about our lives."
The 535 goons are irrelevant. We run your lives. And we are Legion.
dominant political ideology that insists that they are supposed to
decide every little detail about our lives."
The 535 goons are irrelevant. We run your lives. And we are Legion.
Posted by: Hordes of Faceless, Unelected Bureaucrats at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (rznWS)
255
Making the Census Great Again
Posted by: TRUMP CENSUS at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (nFwvY)
256
More of an explanation...
The court ruled that instead of just registered voters, children and others need to be included in congressional districts.
So if you are in a district with a lot of families, the kids will count as people too, instead of just registered voters.
Of course, on this narrow issue, illegals (and everyone else) were included.
Now, a new case needs to be brought that narrows the counted group from everyone to legal citizens.
The court ruled that instead of just registered voters, children and others need to be included in congressional districts.
So if you are in a district with a lot of families, the kids will count as people too, instead of just registered voters.
Of course, on this narrow issue, illegals (and everyone else) were included.
Now, a new case needs to be brought that narrows the counted group from everyone to legal citizens.
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (Zs4uk)
257
79.. Sunny. Headed to 84. Lawn mowing day after work.
You people with your Sun Privilege.
It's snowing here.
You people with your Sun Privilege.
It's snowing here.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (1xUj/)
258
246
should be divided by equal numbers of taxpayers. freeloaders should not have a voice. you want a voice, get off the dole.
Posted by: talgus at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (vwHnd)
I'd be careful about that. It might have been a good idea up till now, but with automation preparing to do away with 50% of the jobs in the next 20 years or so, that would just cement all political power into the hands of the establishment.
should be divided by equal numbers of taxpayers. freeloaders should not have a voice. you want a voice, get off the dole.
Posted by: talgus at April 04, 2016 03:12 PM (vwHnd)
I'd be careful about that. It might have been a good idea up till now, but with automation preparing to do away with 50% of the jobs in the next 20 years or so, that would just cement all political power into the hands of the establishment.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (gUBMA)
259
14 California will pick up two or three more districts and thus Electoral College votes just because of all the illegals.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (nPrGV)
I believe the 2010 census was the first one ever that CA did not get another congtresscritter.
Even with all the illegals counted, they have caused an economic (and population) exodus.
CA is the New NY or MI, just nicer climate.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 02:18 PM (nPrGV)
I believe the 2010 census was the first one ever that CA did not get another congtresscritter.
Even with all the illegals counted, they have caused an economic (and population) exodus.
CA is the New NY or MI, just nicer climate.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (ujg0T)
260
*waves back to SMFH*
Hobbling with a broke toe. Handed off chapter and got paid. Got handed back two more chapters and dude wants me to collaborate with friend to write the sequels when he's gone. *thud* He has sent off the first ten chapters to his editor for another look.
Mailed off eBay packages. Deposited check from writing. Grocery shopping. And finally tackled updating contact info with GoDaddy.
And I still have to go to work at 5pm. *double thud*
So good luck with your endeavours.
Hobbling with a broke toe. Handed off chapter and got paid. Got handed back two more chapters and dude wants me to collaborate with friend to write the sequels when he's gone. *thud* He has sent off the first ten chapters to his editor for another look.
Mailed off eBay packages. Deposited check from writing. Grocery shopping. And finally tackled updating contact info with GoDaddy.
And I still have to go to work at 5pm. *double thud*
So good luck with your endeavours.
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (nPrGV)
Posted by: Grandma Hillary at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (OD2ni)
262
To what does the "Supreme" in the phrase "Supreme Court" refer? Supremely stupid? Supremely unconstitutional?
There is nothing left to say.
There is nothing left to say.
Posted by: zombie at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (jBuUi)
263
Ace only reads the headlines ---- Just.Like.You.
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (3ZtZW)
That day the comments got shut down I found myself reading all the way to the bottom of an article linked in one of Ace's subsequent posts.
After 5 straight minutes of reading I was flustered to find myself looking at an italicized description of the author with their twitter handle in it. "What on earth is this?" I thought to myself.
It was the footer, indicating I had finished the article.
A sad day at Chez Kari.
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:13 PM (3ZtZW)
That day the comments got shut down I found myself reading all the way to the bottom of an article linked in one of Ace's subsequent posts.
After 5 straight minutes of reading I was flustered to find myself looking at an italicized description of the author with their twitter handle in it. "What on earth is this?" I thought to myself.
It was the footer, indicating I had finished the article.
A sad day at Chez Kari.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (xuouz)
264
D. Gooch's comment at 240 would seem to cry out for a correction of this post. Or perhaps an erasure.
Posted by: Sharkman at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (QWtgr)
265
What about non-resident non-citizens? Although Canadian, I would like tovote in the election
Posted by: Lurker Primus at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (tHP3B)
266
Let's all take a deep breath as this ruling changes absolutely nothing. I suggest a quick read of the initial lawsuit for everyone who has not done that, and then we can come back and discuss it then.
Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (iONHu)
Posted by: THe Powers That Be at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (rznWS)
268
Now, a new case needs to be brought that narrows the counted group from everyone to legal citizens.
In which this case is cited as precedent in which foreigners are deemed quasi citizens of the USA.
Now, a new case needs to be brought that narrows the counted group from everyone to legal citizens.
In which this case is cited as precedent in which foreigners are deemed quasi citizens of the USA.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:17 PM (ro1q5)
269
"The 535 goons are irrelevant. We run your lives. And we are Legion.
Posted by: Hordes of Faceless, Unelected Bureaucrats"
Yup. Just think of buildings upon buildings filled with Lois Lerner clones. Partisan and completely unaccountable.
Posted by: Hordes of Faceless, Unelected Bureaucrats"
Yup. Just think of buildings upon buildings filled with Lois Lerner clones. Partisan and completely unaccountable.
Posted by: Benji Carver at April 04, 2016 03:17 PM (OD2ni)
270
The correctness of the decision is not the issue.
The fact it is before the Court n the first place is the issue.
In a sovereign Republic a case like this one would be a hypothetical item in a law school exam.
The fact it is before the Court n the first place is the issue.
In a sovereign Republic a case like this one would be a hypothetical item in a law school exam.
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 03:17 PM (mR7Es)
271
As I wrote before, the basic assumption was that those here illegally
would be summarily ejected and, therefore, not even worth the bother of
considering for census counting
***
Fun historical fact. Shortly before the Mexican-American war a bunch of Americans illegally immigrated into Mexican California.
The Mexicans tried everything they could do to get them to leave short of sending the army to evict them (though note the Mexican government repeatedly claimed this right) and...it didn't work.
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
would be summarily ejected and, therefore, not even worth the bother of
considering for census counting
***
Fun historical fact. Shortly before the Mexican-American war a bunch of Americans illegally immigrated into Mexican California.
The Mexicans tried everything they could do to get them to leave short of sending the army to evict them (though note the Mexican government repeatedly claimed this right) and...it didn't work.
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
272
So, Hysterical Overreaction all week, half-day Friday, False Hope on Saturday, Crushing Depression on Sunday, and we'll try Pessimism again on Monday and just see how things work out.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (wB8Tg)
273
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:05 PM (qf6WZ)
So you're saying that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't mean "All arms not approved by the federal government for highly regulated and restricted hunting of animals, that look scary, or have a thing that goes up, are banned and all well regulated, law abiding groups who discuss the Constitution or have the words, "Freedom", "Constitution, "Republic" or similar terms in their names are to be classified as terror/ hate groups, have their non-profit status indefinitely delayed or denied, and be audited without cause by the IRS"?
So you're saying that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't mean "All arms not approved by the federal government for highly regulated and restricted hunting of animals, that look scary, or have a thing that goes up, are banned and all well regulated, law abiding groups who discuss the Constitution or have the words, "Freedom", "Constitution, "Republic" or similar terms in their names are to be classified as terror/ hate groups, have their non-profit status indefinitely delayed or denied, and be audited without cause by the IRS"?
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (XItbt)
274
Just think of buildings upon buildings filled with Lois Lerner clones. Partisan and completely unaccountable.
Posted by: Benji Carver at April 04, 2016 03:17 PM (OD2ni)
Yeah I think I won't, thanks. It's giving me dark thoughts.
Posted by: Benji Carver at April 04, 2016 03:17 PM (OD2ni)
Yeah I think I won't, thanks. It's giving me dark thoughts.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (xuouz)
275
It's the demographics, stupid. Demographics, all the way down. We don't win without appealing to to those who aren't all that Conservative. It is that simple, but it is hard to do, the last one to do it, masterfully was Reagan.
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (sdxPm)
276
Illegal aliens, also known as foreign citizens.
These foreign citizens have no right to "representation."
I think this is a good argument. Should tourists that happen to be here during the census get counted for representation?
These foreign citizens have no right to "representation."
I think this is a good argument. Should tourists that happen to be here during the census get counted for representation?
Posted by: Grump928(c) at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (evdj2)
277
The Mexicans tried everything they could do to get
them to leave short of sending the army to evict them (though note the
Mexican government repeatedly claimed this right) and...it didn't work.
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
History is ironic isn't it.
them to leave short of sending the army to evict them (though note the
Mexican government repeatedly claimed this right) and...it didn't work.
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
History is ironic isn't it.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (gUBMA)
278
Let's all take a deep breath as this ruling changes absolutely nothing. I suggest a quick read of the initial lawsuit for everyone who has not done that, and then we can come back and discuss it then.
====
Ace occasionally talks about registration for comments and how that would F up everything - and I totes agree BUT maybe having a 1-3 item pop quiz at the end of a post to see if you have the gist of it before it unlocks for posting would do the trick....
====
Ace occasionally talks about registration for comments and how that would F up everything - and I totes agree BUT maybe having a 1-3 item pop quiz at the end of a post to see if you have the gist of it before it unlocks for posting would do the trick....
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (3ZtZW)
279
Seems to me that sometime back in the US of A's history that a slave holder got extra votes based upon the number of slaves that were owned. So we're repeating history, not making new history.
Posted by: robert17 at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (19WHj)
280
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
Is it too late to correct this injustice and give CA back to Mexico?
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
Is it too late to correct this injustice and give CA back to Mexico?
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (XItbt)
281
254
The 535 goons are irrelevant. We run your lives. And we are Legion.
Posted by: Hordes of Faceless, Unelected Bureaucrats at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (rznWS)
-------------
Yep.
Marx's prediction comes true. The State (with all of that law stuff) withers away, to be replaced by "the administration of things."
And we are the things.
The 535 goons are irrelevant. We run your lives. And we are Legion.
Posted by: Hordes of Faceless, Unelected Bureaucrats at April 04, 2016 03:14 PM (rznWS)
-------------
Yep.
Marx's prediction comes true. The State (with all of that law stuff) withers away, to be replaced by "the administration of things."
And we are the things.
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 04, 2016 03:21 PM (T/5A0)
282
67 Yay, stare decisis.
Which explains why the patriot judges decided the way they did. This has to be taken up in the Legislatures.
If The Donald is smart, he would start campaigning on this.....
Which explains why the patriot judges decided the way they did. This has to be taken up in the Legislatures.
If The Donald is smart, he would start campaigning on this.....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 04, 2016 03:21 PM (ujg0T)
283
The SC should have specifically addressed illegal aliens and stated they are not to be counted. That should not be left up to the states. So the wailing and knashing is well deserved.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (KEA7I)
284
Posted by: Anna Puma at April 04, 2016 03:15 PM (nPrGV)
---
You need to stay off that foot as much as you can. Those big toe injuries are a bitch to heal.
Wow, to carry on with his work! That is impressive, girl!
When Amazon brings grocery delivery to my AO, I'm gonna be on that harder than the 'rons on Kate Upton.
Went shopping yesterday at HEB, and it was a madhouse.
Never get in the way of a dependapotamus on a payday weekend. It ain't pretty, though the occasional territorial fights are entertaining.
---
You need to stay off that foot as much as you can. Those big toe injuries are a bitch to heal.
Wow, to carry on with his work! That is impressive, girl!
When Amazon brings grocery delivery to my AO, I'm gonna be on that harder than the 'rons on Kate Upton.
Went shopping yesterday at HEB, and it was a madhouse.
Never get in the way of a dependapotamus on a payday weekend. It ain't pretty, though the occasional territorial fights are entertaining.
Posted by: SMFH while circling the drain... at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (rlfds)
285
"nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
286
My question is why was this even in the Federal Court System in the first place?
Its about State Districts for a State Office... based on a State Law... seems to me that the Feds should not even have Jurisdiction....
Oh... that's right, because even though the pesky old Constitution gives States the Power to run their own elections... the Voting Rights Act tells SOUTHERN States they must get Federal Approval....
And these districts were drawn by a Federal Judge...
Sovereign.... you keepa using that word... I done think it means what you think it means...
Its about State Districts for a State Office... based on a State Law... seems to me that the Feds should not even have Jurisdiction....
Oh... that's right, because even though the pesky old Constitution gives States the Power to run their own elections... the Voting Rights Act tells SOUTHERN States they must get Federal Approval....
And these districts were drawn by a Federal Judge...
Sovereign.... you keepa using that word... I done think it means what you think it means...
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (qf6WZ)
287
275
It's the demographics, stupid. Demographics, all the way down. We don't
win without appealing to to those who aren't all that Conservative. It
is that simple, but it is hard to do, the last one to do it, masterfully
was Reagan.
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (sdxPm)
This works fine as long as you realize that Reagan didn't win by pandering, racially. He did it by offering the promise of fulfilling the American dream, but today's GOP doesn't do that. They think the way to win is to out pander the Democrats, and that is the problem with the GOP, at least one of them.
It's the demographics, stupid. Demographics, all the way down. We don't
win without appealing to to those who aren't all that Conservative. It
is that simple, but it is hard to do, the last one to do it, masterfully
was Reagan.
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (sdxPm)
This works fine as long as you realize that Reagan didn't win by pandering, racially. He did it by offering the promise of fulfilling the American dream, but today's GOP doesn't do that. They think the way to win is to out pander the Democrats, and that is the problem with the GOP, at least one of them.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:23 PM (gUBMA)
288
"There is nothing stopping a new ruling that narrows things down to exclude illegals."
except reality, of course...
except reality, of course...
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 04, 2016 03:23 PM (Pj+xp)
289
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
----------
Or at least why the state has the flag it does!
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
----------
Or at least why the state has the flag it does!
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:24 PM (NUqwG)
290
So...this is yet another wonderful impact of Obama's open southern border.
Law-breaking sanctuary cities benefiting the most, naturally.
Law-breaking sanctuary cities benefiting the most, naturally.
Posted by: Lizzy at April 04, 2016 03:24 PM (NOIQH)
291
So we're repeating history, not making new history.
___
Hey I totally pay my servants $10/hour with no health care. Its nothing at all like slavery.
I mean who can afford to pay an American wage to do my landscaping?
Now if you'll excuse me I am late for the Living Wage For All rally.
___
Hey I totally pay my servants $10/hour with no health care. Its nothing at all like slavery.
I mean who can afford to pay an American wage to do my landscaping?
Now if you'll excuse me I am late for the Living Wage For All rally.
Posted by: Some Upper Middle Class Liberal at April 04, 2016 03:24 PM (X7E8f)
292
"Never get in the way of a dependapotamus on a payday weekend. It ain't pretty, though the occasional territorial fights are entertaining."
Pro-tip: Walmart check cashing.returns line is empty at the end of the month. Don't attempt to use at the beginning of the month as people are cashing their government checks and getting cashier's checks to pay their rent. (yes, they have to do that now.)
Pro-tip: Walmart check cashing.returns line is empty at the end of the month. Don't attempt to use at the beginning of the month as people are cashing their government checks and getting cashier's checks to pay their rent. (yes, they have to do that now.)
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:25 PM (UBBWX)
293
The holding was unanimously bad...
Posted by: Tilikum KAW at April 04, 2016 03:25 PM (0x/TW)
294
285
"nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Let's be honest here. Cruz didn't touch the immigration issue until Trump made it the issue in the Primary, or at least the issue before he made himself the primary issue. Notice he was winning when immigration was the primary issue, so maybe he should get back to that.
"nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Let's be honest here. Cruz didn't touch the immigration issue until Trump made it the issue in the Primary, or at least the issue before he made himself the primary issue. Notice he was winning when immigration was the primary issue, so maybe he should get back to that.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:25 PM (gUBMA)
Posted by: Illegals at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (rznWS)
296
"The SC specifically did NOT rule that states must apportion on the basis of total population. This is the correct decision - the Constitution does not mandate a particular form of apportionment. It also does not mandate the one-person-one-vote principle (which is a bit of judicial-made law that is completely nonsensical, given the Senate's apportionment), as Justice Thomas made clear in his concurrence. D.GOOCH
Posted by: GOOCH at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM"
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the 'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: GOOCH at April 04, 2016 03:11 PM"
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the 'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
297
I think some people are missing the subtleties of this. This may not seem like much but it looks to me that it gives states the OK to stuff the ballot box by creating more districts in the service of people who are not supposed to be receiving any services at the tax payers' expense. They may not CHOOSE to do so, but how do you think the states with lots of 'sanctuary cities' are going to lean?
Posted by: Epobirs at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (IdCqF)
298
There probably are districts where the number of ineligible persons are greater than the eligible ones, if you were to add up prisons and illegals and all. I wonder how it'd be living in those places, like if it'd be like bumping into a congressman every time at the local bar, though?
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:27 PM (3ZtZW)
299
So when the Mexican-American war started...said immigrants sided with the US, and are part of the reason that Mexico lost CA...
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
----------
Or at least why the state has the flag it does!
The bear is loose?
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:18 PM (X7E8f)
----------
Or at least why the state has the flag it does!
The bear is loose?
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:27 PM (NsI03)
300
285 "nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Will Cruz let them keep their teddy bears?
285 "nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Will Cruz let them keep their teddy bears?
Posted by: eman at April 04, 2016 03:28 PM (mR7Es)
301
295 @285: "Cruz is also for deporting illegals."
Do we have to give back the teddy bears he gave us?
Posted by: Illegals at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (rznWS)
Yes. But you can keep the soccer balls.
Do we have to give back the teddy bears he gave us?
Posted by: Illegals at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (rznWS)
Yes. But you can keep the soccer balls.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:28 PM (NsI03)
302
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:19 PM (XItbt)
Even in Heller.... where they said the Right to bear arms was an individual Right...
They still seemed OK with the idea that I need PRIOR Government Permission to actually perform that Right (ie background checks and in Calif. gun registration).
How in Hell can we be to the point where I need PRIOR PERMISSION to exercise my RIGHT?
Even in Heller.... where they said the Right to bear arms was an individual Right...
They still seemed OK with the idea that I need PRIOR Government Permission to actually perform that Right (ie background checks and in Calif. gun registration).
How in Hell can we be to the point where I need PRIOR PERMISSION to exercise my RIGHT?
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:28 PM (qf6WZ)
303
Unanimous?
Fat Lady's singing.
Fat Lady's singing.
Posted by: Taqyia2Me at April 04, 2016 03:28 PM (YiAXR)
304
Let's be honest here. Cruz didn't touch the immigration issue until Trump made it the issue in the Primary, or at least the issue before he made himself the primary issue. Notice he was winning when immigration was the primary issue, so maybe he should get back to that.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:25 PM (gUBMA)
------------
This^ is a good point. Cruz seems to be the me-too candidate on immigration and the wall.
Somehow, I'm doubting a Hispanic POTUS is going to actually build a wall or deport other Hispanics.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:25 PM (gUBMA)
------------
This^ is a good point. Cruz seems to be the me-too candidate on immigration and the wall.
Somehow, I'm doubting a Hispanic POTUS is going to actually build a wall or deport other Hispanics.
Posted by: Stay out da bushes at April 04, 2016 03:28 PM (cR/4a)
305
Is it too late to correct this injustice and give CA back to Mexico?
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (XItbt)
Mexico has been working diligently on that for several decades now, and the plan has nearly come to fruition, but why not have Congress spend millions doing useless studies and having Congressional hears on the idea. Gowdy needs something to do.
Posted by: Damiano at April 04, 2016 03:20 PM (XItbt)
Mexico has been working diligently on that for several decades now, and the plan has nearly come to fruition, but why not have Congress spend millions doing useless studies and having Congressional hears on the idea. Gowdy needs something to do.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (gUBMA)
306
Please show your work for Trump wanting touchback amnesty.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (xuouz)
307
What about non-resident non-citizens? Although Canadian, I would like tovote in the election
Posted by: Lurker Primus at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (tHP3B)
This is not about voter eligibility, although if you scan through various conservative sites, including Rush's facebook page, you would swear that this was a huge defeat for conservatives and it grants illegals the right to vote.
It simply says that the Feds cannot mandate to a state how they count their population in order to draw representative districts.
The fact that illegals get counted is not the question. Illegals shouldn't be there. it is a completely different issue.
And if six Mexicans are living in a household, 1. the state or Feds should know whether they are there legally. 1. Until that is determined, it is not up to the state to willy nilly decide they are illegal and therefore not eligible to be counted.
I'm trusting Alito and Thomas on this one, and not radio jockeys or the hysterical internet crowd. Read the comment section at some of these places, it's no wonder those sections are used in Democrat talking points.
At least here, the response has been more thoughtful.
Posted by: Lurker Primus at April 04, 2016 03:16 PM (tHP3B)
This is not about voter eligibility, although if you scan through various conservative sites, including Rush's facebook page, you would swear that this was a huge defeat for conservatives and it grants illegals the right to vote.
It simply says that the Feds cannot mandate to a state how they count their population in order to draw representative districts.
The fact that illegals get counted is not the question. Illegals shouldn't be there. it is a completely different issue.
And if six Mexicans are living in a household, 1. the state or Feds should know whether they are there legally. 1. Until that is determined, it is not up to the state to willy nilly decide they are illegal and therefore not eligible to be counted.
I'm trusting Alito and Thomas on this one, and not radio jockeys or the hysterical internet crowd. Read the comment section at some of these places, it's no wonder those sections are used in Democrat talking points.
At least here, the response has been more thoughtful.
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (ph1j2)
308
265
What about non-resident non-citizens? Although Canadian, I would like to vote in the election
Posted by: Lurker Primus
Sorry, eh, no can do, Canadians, eh, aren't even
allowed to read conservative blogs from the USA, and don't even try to
sound like you're following the election, eh, because you aren't, you
loonie with poutine breath living in America's Hat, eh
What about non-resident non-citizens? Although Canadian, I would like to vote in the election
Posted by: Lurker Primus
Sorry, eh, no can do, Canadians, eh, aren't even
allowed to read conservative blogs from the USA, and don't even try to
sound like you're following the election, eh, because you aren't, you
loonie with poutine breath living in America's Hat, eh
Posted by: cind at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (nRbbW)
309
"Should congressional districts have equal numbers of people, or equal numbers of eligible voters?."
The other side of that is though that districts where there would be a lot of families with children, the children would not be counted since they aren't yet eligible to vote.
That's an enormous part of the population.
The other side of that is though that districts where there would be a lot of families with children, the children would not be counted since they aren't yet eligible to vote.
That's an enormous part of the population.
Posted by: spot at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (BILR8)
310
The Washington Post has an article on the number of non-voters per district.
http://tinyurl.com/j4wlr6g
It is mostly CA, though it looks like TX as well has a lot.
http://tinyurl.com/j4wlr6g
It is mostly CA, though it looks like TX as well has a lot.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 04, 2016 03:30 PM (X7E8f)
311
306 Please show your work for Trump wanting touchback amnesty.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (xuouz)
I can show you any number of immigration positions from Trump that covers everything.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (xuouz)
I can show you any number of immigration positions from Trump that covers everything.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:31 PM (KEA7I)
Posted by: DaveA at April 04, 2016 03:31 PM (DL2i+)
313
How does this ruling affect the counting of women for the drawing of districts? Do women still get to vote?
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:32 PM (NUqwG)
314
This^ is a good point. Cruz seems to be the me-too candidate on immigration and the wall.
Somehow, I'm doubting a Hispanic POTUS is going to actually build a wall or deport other Hispanics.
What trumps what? (SWIDT?)
Hispanic or Canadian?
Somehow, I'm doubting a Hispanic POTUS is going to actually build a wall or deport other Hispanics.
What trumps what? (SWIDT?)
Hispanic or Canadian?
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:32 PM (NsI03)
315
I almost laughed my ass off when Carly Fiorina took umbrage to Trump saying he made the illegal invasion an issue in this election.
Carly said nuh-uh!, we Republicans have been talking about this issue for two decades.
Yeah, talking. And then going to Washington and doing nothing about it, or worse, facilitating it.
I almost laughed my ass off when Carly Fiorina took umbrage to Trump saying he made the illegal invasion an issue in this election.
Carly said nuh-uh!, we Republicans have been talking about this issue for two decades.
Yeah, talking. And then going to Washington and doing nothing about it, or worse, facilitating it.
Posted by: intellectual nudity at April 04, 2016 03:32 PM (ro1q5)
316
"nd Trump is the only one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals."
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
I shall once again post this, for those who might believe the above statement. Trump wants illegals to be deported and to follow existing, traditional US immigration law.
That means that those who are deported for being here illegally or for overstaying visa's, can go back home, and then, according to our actual law, be eligible to return again legally in five to seven years with an application.
That is not touchback amnesty, it is actually, written in the US code law. Currently not being enforced by this administration, who simply ignores illegals, or if caught, requires Border Patrol to let them go.
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
I shall once again post this, for those who might believe the above statement. Trump wants illegals to be deported and to follow existing, traditional US immigration law.
That means that those who are deported for being here illegally or for overstaying visa's, can go back home, and then, according to our actual law, be eligible to return again legally in five to seven years with an application.
That is not touchback amnesty, it is actually, written in the US code law. Currently not being enforced by this administration, who simply ignores illegals, or if caught, requires Border Patrol to let them go.
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (ph1j2)
317
How does this ruling affect the counting of women for the drawing of districts? Do women still get to vote?
The 'Gina vote.
The 'Gina vote.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (NsI03)
318
298 There probably are districts where the number of ineligible persons are greater than the eligible ones, if you were to add up prisons and illegals and all. I wonder how it'd be living in those places, like if it'd be like bumping into a congressman every time at the local bar, though?
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:27 PM (3ZtZW)
Calif. Central Valley..... l live in one of those Districts....
HUGE illegal population.... largest employer in the County are Prisons...
But with no effective Voter ID or checks on ID for Voter registration???
we still elect Democrats...
Posted by: Bigby's Dimpled Baby Knuckles at April 04, 2016 03:27 PM (3ZtZW)
Calif. Central Valley..... l live in one of those Districts....
HUGE illegal population.... largest employer in the County are Prisons...
But with no effective Voter ID or checks on ID for Voter registration???
we still elect Democrats...
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (qf6WZ)
319
"Please, Donald Trump, Shut Up About It And Run As A Third Party Candidate"
bit.ly/1TwO0mD
Look at this slanted, venomous, trash article at Redstate.
The right has fractured and is drifting apart into different worlds.
bit.ly/1TwO0mD
Look at this slanted, venomous, trash article at Redstate.
The right has fractured and is drifting apart into different worlds.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (xuouz)
320
Somehow, I'm doubting a Hispanic POTUS is going to actually build a wall or deport other Hispanics.
---------
Cubans can still gain legal entry if they "touch" the wall unless it is a rainy day and the wall is wet. They must touch a dry wall.
---------
Cubans can still gain legal entry if they "touch" the wall unless it is a rainy day and the wall is wet. They must touch a dry wall.
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (NUqwG)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (xuouz)
322
jwest - "Yes, the Supreme Court ruled 8 - 0, but they ruled on the question put to them, so they didn't have much of a choice."
Dozens of conclusory, arbitrary, and absurd rulings call to say "hi!!".
Technically you are correct jwest. And most rulings follow this pattern - being as narrow as possible.
But the recent runaway train nature of SCOTUS "jurisprudence" on big questions renders your observation somewhat academic.
They follow historically normal, modest, focused pathways unless a single justice decides to just make s**t up (this justice can count on the voting, not judging, Bloc of 4 statists, so that's why we see Roberts and Kennedy shredding the constitution and even now statutory construction and federal tax law with impunity).
Dozens of conclusory, arbitrary, and absurd rulings call to say "hi!!".
Technically you are correct jwest. And most rulings follow this pattern - being as narrow as possible.
But the recent runaway train nature of SCOTUS "jurisprudence" on big questions renders your observation somewhat academic.
They follow historically normal, modest, focused pathways unless a single justice decides to just make s**t up (this justice can count on the voting, not judging, Bloc of 4 statists, so that's why we see Roberts and Kennedy shredding the constitution and even now statutory construction and federal tax law with impunity).
Posted by: rhomboid at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (QDnY+)
323
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:29 PM (ph1j2)
But illegal immigration does not fall under the jurisdiction of the States. That is a Federal mandate. The SC should not have allowed any State to count illegal aliens when considering a district.
But illegal immigration does not fall under the jurisdiction of the States. That is a Federal mandate. The SC should not have allowed any State to count illegal aliens when considering a district.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (KEA7I)
324
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
This type of snobbish derision and elitism is why I relish what we Trumpbots are doing to "your" party.
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
This type of snobbish derision and elitism is why I relish what we Trumpbots are doing to "your" party.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (gUBMA)
325
here in #Failifornia, there are cities and districts that have more votes cast then there are eligible citizens...
#Progress!
#Progress!
Posted by: redc1c4 at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (Pj+xp)
326
According to the article, "states may count all residents, whether or not they are eligible to vote, in drawing election districts."
Does this affect how many representatives a state is allotted in the House or just say that the state can chose that methodology to draw district lines? I'm confused what was actually at stake here. It seems exceedingly weird that the SC would allow the states to be inconsistent with how they report their population for representation, but I'd have never thought that the ACA would be considered a tax, so I'm clearly not smart enough for this kind of thinking.
Does this affect how many representatives a state is allotted in the House or just say that the state can chose that methodology to draw district lines? I'm confused what was actually at stake here. It seems exceedingly weird that the SC would allow the states to be inconsistent with how they report their population for representation, but I'd have never thought that the ACA would be considered a tax, so I'm clearly not smart enough for this kind of thinking.
Posted by: joe, living dangerously at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (KUaJL)
327
One reason I flipped for Cruz over Trump before my primary was because of demographics. Cruz is Hispanic, and has the poorish background thing going for him. Trump is rich old capitalist white guy. Cynically, I judged that in the election, Trump is an easier target for the Dems and MSM, but I repeat myself.
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (sdxPm)
328
Cubans can still gain legal entry if they "touch" the wall unless it is a rainy day and the wall is wet. They must touch a dry wall.
I thought drywall was exclusively Mexican's domain. I thought Cuban's were paint and auto body.
I thought drywall was exclusively Mexican's domain. I thought Cuban's were paint and auto body.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (NsI03)
329
by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:33 PM (ph1j2)
I love that his supporters have to post what Trump really meant even though that's not what he said.
I love that his supporters have to post what Trump really meant even though that's not what he said.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:36 PM (KEA7I)
330
I can show you any number of immigration positions from Trump that covers everything.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:31 PM (KEA7I)
Please recycle the same answer on visas from the debate that I see on here every damn day, and ignore, again, his clarification from an hour or two after the debate.
Or cite the contents of an off-the-record meeting as proof positive he will go back on everything he says, rather than what it is, an unknown.
Or reference, without citing, an interview where he walked back his intentions regarding deportations.
Please do. Put up some links.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:31 PM (KEA7I)
Please recycle the same answer on visas from the debate that I see on here every damn day, and ignore, again, his clarification from an hour or two after the debate.
Or cite the contents of an off-the-record meeting as proof positive he will go back on everything he says, rather than what it is, an unknown.
Or reference, without citing, an interview where he walked back his intentions regarding deportations.
Please do. Put up some links.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:36 PM (xuouz)
331
What did he say, Joe? What is it that he said that makes it so clear to you he's really the ultimate amnesty candidate?
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:37 PM (xuouz)
332
Hmmm. The dragons by the outer edges seem a bit reckless. *consults
Dwarven Book of Grudges for "volunteers" to parlay with them*
I told em restraint would pay off.
Dwarven Book of Grudges for "volunteers" to parlay with them*
I told em restraint would pay off.
Posted by: The guy who didn't link Short People this last thread at April 04, 2016 03:38 PM (DL2i+)
333
nood mexican jumping torture
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:38 PM (xuouz)
334
327 One reason I flipped for Cruz over Trump before my primary was because of demographics. Cruz is Hispanic, and has the poorish background thing going for him. Trump is rich old capitalist white guy. Cynically, I judged that in the election, Trump is an easier target for the Dems and MSM, but I repeat myself.
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (sdxPm)
Holy Crap.... just hit me....
Cruz is a Hispanic American Canadian!
He checks ALL the boxes to be President of the new North American Union!!!
Posted by: kraken at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (sdxPm)
Holy Crap.... just hit me....
Cruz is a Hispanic American Canadian!
He checks ALL the boxes to be President of the new North American Union!!!
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:38 PM (qf6WZ)
335
326
According to the article, "states may count all residents, whether or
not they are eligible to vote, in drawing election districts."
Does this affect how many representatives a state is allotted in the
House or just say that the state can chose that methodology to draw
district lines? I'm confused what was actually at stake here. It seems
exceedingly weird that the SC would allow the states to be inconsistent
with how they report their population for representation, but I'd have
never thought that the ACA would be considered a tax, so I'm clearly not
smart enough for this kind of thinking.
Posted by: joe, living dangerously at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (KUaJL)
The states don't count heads for representation because they have an obvious incentive to cheat, even back in 1787. That's why the Census Bureau is a federal agency.
According to the article, "states may count all residents, whether or
not they are eligible to vote, in drawing election districts."
Does this affect how many representatives a state is allotted in the
House or just say that the state can chose that methodology to draw
district lines? I'm confused what was actually at stake here. It seems
exceedingly weird that the SC would allow the states to be inconsistent
with how they report their population for representation, but I'd have
never thought that the ACA would be considered a tax, so I'm clearly not
smart enough for this kind of thinking.
Posted by: joe, living dangerously at April 04, 2016 03:35 PM (KUaJL)
The states don't count heads for representation because they have an obvious incentive to cheat, even back in 1787. That's why the Census Bureau is a federal agency.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 03:39 PM (5f5bM)
336
Did you want them to rule the other way?
If only registered voters were used, then areas where there are families with lots of kids would be underrepresented.
If only registered voters were used, then areas where there are families with lots of kids would be underrepresented.
Posted by: jwest at April 04, 2016 03:40 PM (Zs4uk)
337
Cruz is a Hispanic American Canadian!
He checks ALL the boxes to be President of the new North American Union!!!
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:38 PM (qf6WZ)
You know, it would solve a lot of problems if we just annexed Mexico and Canada. They wouldn't stop us, either. Now, it might create some entirely new problems . . . .
He checks ALL the boxes to be President of the new North American Union!!!
Posted by: Don Quixote, picking up his lance at April 04, 2016 03:38 PM (qf6WZ)
You know, it would solve a lot of problems if we just annexed Mexico and Canada. They wouldn't stop us, either. Now, it might create some entirely new problems . . . .
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 03:40 PM (5f5bM)
338
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
This type of snobbish derision and elitism is why I relish what we Trumpbots are doing to "your" party.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM
_____________
Instances like this SC decision and self righteous spouting off about things you don't understand and are not true -- is why I will relish Trump's implosion and you Trumpbots getting your comeuppance.
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
This type of snobbish derision and elitism is why I relish what we Trumpbots are doing to "your" party.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM
_____________
Instances like this SC decision and self righteous spouting off about things you don't understand and are not true -- is why I will relish Trump's implosion and you Trumpbots getting your comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:40 PM (MpfHK)
339
No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Not really, and that's not within the President's power, anyway.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Not really, and that's not within the President's power, anyway.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
340
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:37 PM (xuouz)
I don't have a clue what Trump is for and neither does he. Keep spinning and explaining what he really means after all of his incoherent , inconsistent mumbo jumbo. I will keep listening to Trump supporter's explanations. The good ones.
I don't have a clue what Trump is for and neither does he. Keep spinning and explaining what he really means after all of his incoherent , inconsistent mumbo jumbo. I will keep listening to Trump supporter's explanations. The good ones.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:42 PM (KEA7I)
341
Good.
Posted by: Zeno at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (mk1E9)
342
This type of snobbish derision and elitism is why I relish what we Trumpbots are doing to "your" party.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM
_______________
It's almost as if you don't care if the Supreme Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM
_______________
It's almost as if you don't care if the Supreme Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
343
Instances like this SC decision and self righteous
spouting off about things you don't understand and are not true -- is
why I will relish Trump's implosion and you Trumpbots getting your
comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:40 PM (MpfHK)
What comeuppance. You going to take our jobs? Break up our families? What exactly do you think you're going to do? You're too stupid to know how screwed you are.
spouting off about things you don't understand and are not true -- is
why I will relish Trump's implosion and you Trumpbots getting your
comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:40 PM (MpfHK)
What comeuppance. You going to take our jobs? Break up our families? What exactly do you think you're going to do? You're too stupid to know how screwed you are.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:44 PM (gUBMA)
344
339 No, Trump wants touchback amnesty.
Not really, and that's not within the President's power, anyway.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
No . He was invited by Beck as was Mike Lee. Cruz accepted the invitation in order to bash Obama and bring light to the catastrophe Obama had created at the border. You can read Cruz's statements and his speech at the time.
Not really, and that's not within the President's power, anyway.
Cruz is also for deporting illegals.
Posted by: Harun at April 04, 2016 03:22 PM (UBBWX)
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
No . He was invited by Beck as was Mike Lee. Cruz accepted the invitation in order to bash Obama and bring light to the catastrophe Obama had created at the border. You can read Cruz's statements and his speech at the time.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:44 PM (KEA7I)
345
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
----------
Handing out some theodore bears and soccer balls to (actual) children is one thing. Doing so with Beck hints at shared insanity.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
----------
Handing out some theodore bears and soccer balls to (actual) children is one thing. Doing so with Beck hints at shared insanity.
Posted by: RioBravo at April 04, 2016 03:44 PM (NUqwG)
346
But illegal immigration does not fall under the jurisdiction of the States. That is a Federal mandate. The SC should not have allowed any State to count illegal aliens when considering a district.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (KEA7I)
Joe, the point is that the ruling says that the Feds are not going to rule as to the status of an individual being counted. Simply being a living breathing human suffices. Which is why children, felons, etc. who are not eligible to vote are included in census. and therefore districting.
What this case was asking was for the SC to tell the State of Texas that only certain individuals would be considered "eligible" to be counted. They wanted registered voters, not every individual living there. The court was absolutely correct in determining that representation in a state cannot be mandated by the feds to limited "approved' individuals.
This would remove counting those individuals not of age, legally residing, mentally incompetent, etc from representation by their elected officials. Since those individuals cannot vote, they must rely on those who can to elect representatives who represent them. If they are not counted, then the number of representatives is fewer and more select. Not what is the goal of a representative republic.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:34 PM (KEA7I)
Joe, the point is that the ruling says that the Feds are not going to rule as to the status of an individual being counted. Simply being a living breathing human suffices. Which is why children, felons, etc. who are not eligible to vote are included in census. and therefore districting.
What this case was asking was for the SC to tell the State of Texas that only certain individuals would be considered "eligible" to be counted. They wanted registered voters, not every individual living there. The court was absolutely correct in determining that representation in a state cannot be mandated by the feds to limited "approved' individuals.
This would remove counting those individuals not of age, legally residing, mentally incompetent, etc from representation by their elected officials. Since those individuals cannot vote, they must rely on those who can to elect representatives who represent them. If they are not counted, then the number of representatives is fewer and more select. Not what is the goal of a representative republic.
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:45 PM (ph1j2)
347
Hi big guy. Long time no see,
Hey tomm. Good to see you, too.
and yes that is an important distinction, but not sure the court thinks it is.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (gUBMA)
The court is so screwed up on this issue (and has been for a good, long time) that applying the word "think" to them doesn't even fit. I remember the ruling they had made about the New York town that had to use proportional voting methods (VERY un-American) in order to try and insure that there was adequate hispanic representation in the city council, I think it was, even as most of the hispanics in that town were likely illegals.
Hey tomm. Good to see you, too.
and yes that is an important distinction, but not sure the court thinks it is.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:09 PM (gUBMA)
The court is so screwed up on this issue (and has been for a good, long time) that applying the word "think" to them doesn't even fit. I remember the ruling they had made about the New York town that had to use proportional voting methods (VERY un-American) in order to try and insure that there was adequate hispanic representation in the city council, I think it was, even as most of the hispanics in that town were likely illegals.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:45 PM (zc3Db)
348
I don't have a clue what Trump is for and neither does he. Keep spinning and explaining what he really means after all of his incoherent , inconsistent mumbo jumbo. I will keep listening to Trump supporter's explanations. The good ones.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:42 PM (KEA7I)
If you can't explain what you find inconsistent about it (and you've failed to do so to a fault in this thread) then what is there for me to spin and explain?
The only reason I or anyone else have to explain anything is your intransigence and insistence that his repeated hardline immigration stances are in fact evidence that he's in favor of amnesty.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:42 PM (KEA7I)
If you can't explain what you find inconsistent about it (and you've failed to do so to a fault in this thread) then what is there for me to spin and explain?
The only reason I or anyone else have to explain anything is your intransigence and insistence that his repeated hardline immigration stances are in fact evidence that he's in favor of amnesty.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:46 PM (xuouz)
349
Clarence Thomas is a bleeding heart liberal!
Posted by: Zeno at April 04, 2016 03:46 PM (mk1E9)
350
I guess what should be done, then, is a thorough
deporting of all illegals before the 2020 census. And Trump is the only
one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals. That's the
only way to 'fix' the problem as I see it.
Posted by: K-E at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (cqABU)
No Trump hasn't been calling for the deportation of all illegals... in fact he has said the vast majority should be allowed to stay (or "touch back" and then stay, depending on the day and his mood).
Cruz, OTOH, has called for deportations and for strictly enforcing current law.
deporting of all illegals before the 2020 census. And Trump is the only
one who has been calling for a deportation of all illegals. That's the
only way to 'fix' the problem as I see it.
Posted by: K-E at April 04, 2016 02:22 PM (cqABU)
No Trump hasn't been calling for the deportation of all illegals... in fact he has said the vast majority should be allowed to stay (or "touch back" and then stay, depending on the day and his mood).
Cruz, OTOH, has called for deportations and for strictly enforcing current law.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:46 PM (3JA/M)
351
Do we have to hate everything and everyone even if we never thought about the issue until this morning?
No, but we may.
No, but we may.
Posted by: DaveA at April 04, 2016 03:47 PM (DL2i+)
352
What comeuppance. You going to take our jobs? Break up our families? What exactly do you think you're going to do? You're too stupid to know how screwed you are.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:44
____________
Ugh -- what drivel. The comeuppance is merely Trump losing the nomination.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:44
____________
Ugh -- what drivel. The comeuppance is merely Trump losing the nomination.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:48 PM (MpfHK)
353
It's almost as if you don't care if the Supreme
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as
'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
Where exactly did I criticize it? See everything you accuse me of is simply projection, all emotion and no substance.
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as
'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
Where exactly did I criticize it? See everything you accuse me of is simply projection, all emotion and no substance.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (gUBMA)
354
the point is that the ruling says that the Feds are
not going to rule as to the status of an individual being counted.
Simply being a living breathing human suffices. Which is why children,
felons, etc. who are not eligible to vote are included in census. and
therefore districting.
What this case was asking was for the SC to tell the State of Texas
that only certain individuals would be considered "eligible" to be
counted. They wanted registered voters, not every individual living
there. The court was absolutely correct in determining that
representation in a state cannot be mandated by the feds to limited
"approved' individuals.
This would remove counting those individuals not of age, legally
residing, mentally incompetent, etc from representation by their elected
officials. Since those individuals cannot vote, they must rely on those
who can to elect representatives who represent them. If they are not
counted, then the number of representatives is fewer and more select.
Not what is the goal of a representative republic.
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:45 PM (ph1j2)
Good explanation, Jen... thanks.
not going to rule as to the status of an individual being counted.
Simply being a living breathing human suffices. Which is why children,
felons, etc. who are not eligible to vote are included in census. and
therefore districting.
What this case was asking was for the SC to tell the State of Texas
that only certain individuals would be considered "eligible" to be
counted. They wanted registered voters, not every individual living
there. The court was absolutely correct in determining that
representation in a state cannot be mandated by the feds to limited
"approved' individuals.
This would remove counting those individuals not of age, legally
residing, mentally incompetent, etc from representation by their elected
officials. Since those individuals cannot vote, they must rely on those
who can to elect representatives who represent them. If they are not
counted, then the number of representatives is fewer and more select.
Not what is the goal of a representative republic.
Posted by: Jen the original at April 04, 2016 03:45 PM (ph1j2)
Good explanation, Jen... thanks.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (3JA/M)
355
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:46 PM (xuouz)
I don't have to repost Trumps statements just because you refuse to acknowledge them. They've been posted and linked to frequently.
I don't have to repost Trumps statements just because you refuse to acknowledge them. They've been posted and linked to frequently.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (KEA7I)
356
340
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:37 PM (xuouz)
I don't have a clue what Trump is for and neither does he. Keep
spinning and explaining what he really means after all of his incoherent
, inconsistent mumbo jumbo. I will keep listening to Trump
supporter's explanations. The good ones.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:42 PM (KEA7I)
But it's an interesting strategy, to just throw a lot of inconsistent off-the-cuff thoughts out there and the worshipers will just pull out the ones that they personally agree with and ignore everything else he says to the contrary. I have been having a thread going for several days on Disqus with a woman who is delusionally convinced that Trump is going to pull out of NATO and dedicate the savings to bolstering Social Security. She has computed (herself, not based on anything the campaign has put out) that the savings will be $77 billion per year, refuses to comprehend that it might be spent on other items within the defense budget, even though Trump wants to build up the military according to some of the things he says, and believes that no one except Trump has a plan for Social Security, and that this is his plan. How do you reason with that kind of delusion? I get the impression that she is a Ron/Rand Paulista with nowhere to turn.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:37 PM (xuouz)
I don't have a clue what Trump is for and neither does he. Keep
spinning and explaining what he really means after all of his incoherent
, inconsistent mumbo jumbo. I will keep listening to Trump
supporter's explanations. The good ones.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:42 PM (KEA7I)
But it's an interesting strategy, to just throw a lot of inconsistent off-the-cuff thoughts out there and the worshipers will just pull out the ones that they personally agree with and ignore everything else he says to the contrary. I have been having a thread going for several days on Disqus with a woman who is delusionally convinced that Trump is going to pull out of NATO and dedicate the savings to bolstering Social Security. She has computed (herself, not based on anything the campaign has put out) that the savings will be $77 billion per year, refuses to comprehend that it might be spent on other items within the defense budget, even though Trump wants to build up the military according to some of the things he says, and believes that no one except Trump has a plan for Social Security, and that this is his plan. How do you reason with that kind of delusion? I get the impression that she is a Ron/Rand Paulista with nowhere to turn.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (5f5bM)
357
I'm sorry, hysterically overwrought has now been moved back to Monday Afternoon. Sorry for the schedule change.
Can I skip and go mow grass in a snowstorm because
1. it needs it.
2. it's actually snowing.
Can I skip and go mow grass in a snowstorm because
1. it needs it.
2. it's actually snowing.
Posted by: DaveA at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (DL2i+)
358
It's almost as if you don't care if the Supreme
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (zc3Db)
359
I don't have to repost Trumps statements just because you refuse to acknowledge them. They've been posted and linked to frequently.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (KEA7I)
I do not have a selective memory. I will acknowledge anything you care to link to me from anything other than Huffpo, salon, slate, or motherjones.
If there are so many of them, and they're linked so frequently, then it really shouldn't be a lot to ask.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (KEA7I)
I do not have a selective memory. I will acknowledge anything you care to link to me from anything other than Huffpo, salon, slate, or motherjones.
If there are so many of them, and they're linked so frequently, then it really shouldn't be a lot to ask.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:51 PM (xuouz)
360
you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
Projection.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
Projection.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:51 PM (xuouz)
361
Not really. Wasn't Cruz down with Beck at the border handing out teddy bears and soccer balls?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
Nope... he brought medical supplies during a crisis created by both the Obama administration and its GOPe enablers who were pushing amnesty for dreamers.
Points for sticking with lying talking points though I guess.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:41 PM (zc3Db)
Nope... he brought medical supplies during a crisis created by both the Obama administration and its GOPe enablers who were pushing amnesty for dreamers.
Points for sticking with lying talking points though I guess.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:53 PM (3JA/M)
362
Points for sticking with lying talking points though I guess.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:53 PM (3JA/M)
But enough about Ted Cruz's talking points.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:53 PM (3JA/M)
But enough about Ted Cruz's talking points.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:54 PM (xuouz)
363
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (zc3Db)
That was not the question before the court though.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (zc3Db)
That was not the question before the court though.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:55 PM (3JA/M)
364
It's almost as if you don't care if the Supreme
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
_______________
I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But I can surmise that Thomas and Alito know something you don't.
Court decision is correct or not -- you just like to criticize it as 'establishment'. Typical of Trump voters. All emotion -- no substance
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:43 PM (MpfHK)
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
_______________
I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But I can surmise that Thomas and Alito know something you don't.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:55 PM (MpfHK)
365
Can I skip and go mow grass in a snowstorm because
1. it needs it.
2. it's actually snowing.
Posted by: DaveA
We need illegals to shovel the grass.
Can I skip and go mow grass in a snowstorm because
1. it needs it.
2. it's actually snowing.
Posted by: DaveA
We need illegals to shovel the grass.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at April 04, 2016 03:56 PM (FkBIv)
366
But enough about Ted Cruz's talking points.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:54 PM (xuouz)
Cruz is not the one who has been lying his ass off throughout this campaign. That would be your man, Trump.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:54 PM (xuouz)
Cruz is not the one who has been lying his ass off throughout this campaign. That would be your man, Trump.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:56 PM (3JA/M)
367
359
I don't have to repost Trumps statements just because you refuse to
acknowledge them. They've been posted and linked to frequently.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (KEA7I)
I do not have a selective memory. I will acknowledge anything you
care to link to me from anything other than Huffpo, salon, slate, or
motherjones.
If there are so many of them, and they're linked so frequently, then it really shouldn't be a lot to ask.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:51 PM (xuouz)
Have you ever listened to a press conference? He says 300 things in the course of an hour, rarely completes a sentence, goes off on tangents whenever he reminds himself of something else he has an opinion on, and lies constantly. It is impossible to know what Trump's position on anything is. Look at the debate he had with his own website over H1-B visas, or the 3 different positions on abortion within a few hours last week. The only thing I am sure of is that he is going to build a YUGE wall and Mexico is going to pay for it, somehow.
I don't have to repost Trumps statements just because you refuse to
acknowledge them. They've been posted and linked to frequently.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:49 PM (KEA7I)
I do not have a selective memory. I will acknowledge anything you
care to link to me from anything other than Huffpo, salon, slate, or
motherjones.
If there are so many of them, and they're linked so frequently, then it really shouldn't be a lot to ask.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:51 PM (xuouz)
Have you ever listened to a press conference? He says 300 things in the course of an hour, rarely completes a sentence, goes off on tangents whenever he reminds himself of something else he has an opinion on, and lies constantly. It is impossible to know what Trump's position on anything is. Look at the debate he had with his own website over H1-B visas, or the 3 different positions on abortion within a few hours last week. The only thing I am sure of is that he is going to build a YUGE wall and Mexico is going to pay for it, somehow.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 03:57 PM (5f5bM)
368
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:55 PM (3JA/M)
The question before the court was whether ineligible voters should be counted. Illegal aliens fall within that question. States do not have jurisdiction over Illegal aliens . That was established in their relatively recent Arizona ruling.
The question before the court was whether ineligible voters should be counted. Illegal aliens fall within that question. States do not have jurisdiction over Illegal aliens . That was established in their relatively recent Arizona ruling.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:58 PM (KEA7I)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 03:58 PM (xuouz)
370
I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But I can surmise that Thomas and Alito know something you don't.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:55 PM (MpfHK)
Good for you.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:55 PM (MpfHK)
Good for you.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 04:00 PM (zc3Db)
371
The Supreme Court only held that states may use the district's population rather than consider only voters.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Posted by: Ron Johnson at April 04, 2016 04:00 PM (3H4Xn)
372
Ugh -- what drivel. The comeuppance is merely Trump losing the nomination.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:48 PM (MpfHK)
You're so boringly dull that you can't even imagine a real comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:48 PM (MpfHK)
You're so boringly dull that you can't even imagine a real comeuppance.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:00 PM (gUBMA)
373
Ron, there was a picture of a really nice barrel posted yesterday. Ask for that one.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 04, 2016 04:01 PM (5f5bM)
374
"Cruz is Hispanic, and has the poorish background thing going for him. Trump is rich old capitalist white guy. Cynically, I judged that in the election, Trump is an easier target for the Dems and MSM, but I repeat myself."
Cruz is half Cuban by way of Spanish grandparents, and the other half is American Irish/Italian. Ethnically he'd fit in well in any New Jersey suburb.
In any case, Cubans aren't really Hispanic. Just ask a Mexican or a Honduran. Or better still, a Cuban.
And on the "poor" thing, Ted gives off an "I'm aboard, pull up the ladder" vibe.
Trump gets away with being rich because his shtick is Bruce Wayne wannabee crossed with Rodney Dangerfield Caddyshack.
Cruz is half Cuban by way of Spanish grandparents, and the other half is American Irish/Italian. Ethnically he'd fit in well in any New Jersey suburb.
In any case, Cubans aren't really Hispanic. Just ask a Mexican or a Honduran. Or better still, a Cuban.
And on the "poor" thing, Ted gives off an "I'm aboard, pull up the ladder" vibe.
Trump gets away with being rich because his shtick is Bruce Wayne wannabee crossed with Rodney Dangerfield Caddyshack.
Posted by: Ignoramus at April 04, 2016 04:02 PM (r1fLd)
375
Her is the actual ruling if anyone wants to read it: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (3JA/M)
376
Caesar none of what you said about his comportment at his pressers has anything to do with what I asked for: evidence of his flip-flopping or otherwise changing or contradicting himself on immigration. You don't like him and you think he lies. I know.
The H1-B visas are a separate issue. Also, what was the end result of that visa issue? What's his stated position as of today?
The abortion thing doesn't matter for two reasons. #1 each of the three positions you mention. #2 it's ALL A HYPOTHETICAL that was posed by CHRIS MATTHEWS AS A GOTCHA.
So good on you for carrying the left's water. Let's crucify a career businessperson for not having perfectly formed and articulated positions on everything.
Meanwhile, crickets on examples of Trump contradicting himself on immigration.
The H1-B visas are a separate issue. Also, what was the end result of that visa issue? What's his stated position as of today?
The abortion thing doesn't matter for two reasons. #1 each of the three positions you mention. #2 it's ALL A HYPOTHETICAL that was posed by CHRIS MATTHEWS AS A GOTCHA.
So good on you for carrying the left's water. Let's crucify a career businessperson for not having perfectly formed and articulated positions on everything.
Meanwhile, crickets on examples of Trump contradicting himself on immigration.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (xuouz)
377
Ugh -- what drivel. The comeuppance is merely Trump losing the nomination.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:48 PM (MpfHK)
You're so boringly dull that you can't even imagine a real comeuppance.
_______________
No, I'm giving my real hope for comeuppance -- because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:48 PM (MpfHK)
You're so boringly dull that you can't even imagine a real comeuppance.
_______________
No, I'm giving my real hope for comeuppance -- because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (MpfHK)
378
Nope... he brought medical supplies during a crisis created by both the Obama administration and its GOPe enablers who were pushing amnesty for dreamers.
Points for sticking with lying talking points though I guess.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:53 PM (3JA/M)
Nope, nothing. He did. And even your bullshit about "medical supplies" is just as bad, anyway. But ... to recollect what actually happened, here's an old article from The Blaze, back then:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed Thursday that he will be joining Glenn Beck and Mercury One at the border in McAllen, Texas, on Saturday to feed, clothe, and provide toys for illegal immigrant children.
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the senator, told TheBlaze in an email: "Tens of thousands of children are being smuggled into the United States by dangerous drug cartels and transnational gangs - it is heartless to allow that to continue."
"But while we work to reverse the policies that have caused this tragedy, it is important we recognize the human element of this crisis, and Sen. Cruz is glad to join Glenn Beck and Mercury One in that effort to provide some relief from the suffering this administration is causing," Frazier continued.
That's a load of bullshit and not indicative of anyone who's really looking to deport illegals.
"For the children ...!!!!"
Points for sticking with lying talking points though I guess.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 03:53 PM (3JA/M)
Nope, nothing. He did. And even your bullshit about "medical supplies" is just as bad, anyway. But ... to recollect what actually happened, here's an old article from The Blaze, back then:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz confirmed Thursday that he will be joining Glenn Beck and Mercury One at the border in McAllen, Texas, on Saturday to feed, clothe, and provide toys for illegal immigrant children.
Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the senator, told TheBlaze in an email: "Tens of thousands of children are being smuggled into the United States by dangerous drug cartels and transnational gangs - it is heartless to allow that to continue."
"But while we work to reverse the policies that have caused this tragedy, it is important we recognize the human element of this crisis, and Sen. Cruz is glad to join Glenn Beck and Mercury One in that effort to provide some relief from the suffering this administration is causing," Frazier continued.
That's a load of bullshit and not indicative of anyone who's really looking to deport illegals.
"For the children ...!!!!"
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 04:06 PM (zc3Db)
379
ugh #1 each of the three positions you mention are logically consistent with a pro-life stance***
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 04:07 PM (xuouz)
380
No, I'm giving my real hope for comeuppance --
because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that
needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (MpfHK)
You might want to rethink that, since civilization ain't what it use to be. The cannibals are going to be having all the fun for the foreseeable future.
because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that
needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (MpfHK)
You might want to rethink that, since civilization ain't what it use to be. The cannibals are going to be having all the fun for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:08 PM (gUBMA)
381
The question before the court was whether
ineligible voters should be counted. Illegal aliens fall within that
question. States do not have jurisdiction over Illegal aliens . That
was established in their relatively recent Arizona ruling.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:58 PM (KEA7I)
The question before the court, the ONLY question before the court, was whether states could draw district lines using total population.
Here is the decision:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf
The question before the court was whether
ineligible voters should be counted. Illegal aliens fall within that
question. States do not have jurisdiction over Illegal aliens . That
was established in their relatively recent Arizona ruling.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 03:58 PM (KEA7I)
The question before the court, the ONLY question before the court, was whether states could draw district lines using total population.
Here is the decision:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-940_ed9g.pdf
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:09 PM (3JA/M)
382
Any originalist and textualist can see that the Constitution states that apportionment should be those living in the districts, not voters. Before the 19th Amendment, women were still counted as part of apportionment, the entire fight over the 3/5th compromise was about non-voters counting towards congressional power. That's why this was an easy 8-0 ruling.
Posted by: Carl at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (tEVs6)
383
No, I'm giving my real hope for comeuppance --
because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that
needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (MpfHK)
You might want to rethink that, since civilization ain't what it use to be. The cannibals are going to be having all the fun for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:08
_____________
No thanks -- no rethinking here. Good luck and have a nice day Mr. Cannibal.
because I'm a civilized person and not a member of the alt right that
needs to spout macho threats that mean nothing.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:05 PM (MpfHK)
You might want to rethink that, since civilization ain't what it use to be. The cannibals are going to be having all the fun for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:08
_____________
No thanks -- no rethinking here. Good luck and have a nice day Mr. Cannibal.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (MpfHK)
384
@366: "Cruz is not the one who has been lying his ass off throughout this campaign."
He's a politician - ergo, he's been lying. They're not a group known for honesty.
He's a politician - ergo, he's been lying. They're not a group known for honesty.
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (rznWS)
385
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:09 PM (3JA/M)
And part of that total population contains illegal aliens. The issue was there for them to address and should have been addressed. They chose not to . Shame on them for taking the easy way out.
And part of that total population contains illegal aliens. The issue was there for them to address and should have been addressed. They chose not to . Shame on them for taking the easy way out.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (KEA7I)
386
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 04:06 PM (zc3Db)
Here is an actual contemporaneous news article not Glenn Beck's PR:
http://tinyurl.com/pjrph8w
Your assertions are seemingly made in bad faith.
Here is an actual contemporaneous news article not Glenn Beck's PR:
http://tinyurl.com/pjrph8w
Your assertions are seemingly made in bad faith.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:14 PM (3JA/M)
387
Read the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas. I quote in part:
In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle because no such basis exists. The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment with States. It instead laves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone - not to this Court.
I don't think you could make a better federalist argument.
In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle because no such basis exists. The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment with States. It instead laves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone - not to this Court.
I don't think you could make a better federalist argument.
Posted by: JeffreyL at April 04, 2016 04:16 PM (mXv3y)
388
He's a politician - ergo, he's been lying. They're not a group known for honesty.
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (rznWS)
What is so hard to understand about that simple truth of the universe?
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (rznWS)
What is so hard to understand about that simple truth of the universe?
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (gUBMA)
389
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 04:06 PM (zc3D
Supports exactly what I said. You may want to google Cruz's own statements and speech at that time. He went their specifically to bash Obama over the head with the 'crisis' at the border at that time.
Supports exactly what I said. You may want to google Cruz's own statements and speech at that time. He went their specifically to bash Obama over the head with the 'crisis' at the border at that time.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (KEA7I)
390
Posted by: JeffreyL at April 04, 2016 04:16 PM (mXv3y)
Except the States do not have jurisdiction over illegal aliens.
Except the States do not have jurisdiction over illegal aliens.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:18 PM (KEA7I)
391
He's a politician - ergo, he's been lying. They're not a group known for honesty.
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (rznWS)
What is so hard to understand about that simple truth of the universe?
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (gUBMA)
And yet it is the "non-politician" that seems to have the biggest truth deficit this time around... hmmmmm
Posted by: FaCubeItches at April 04, 2016 04:13 PM (rznWS)
What is so hard to understand about that simple truth of the universe?
Posted by: DFCtomm at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (gUBMA)
And yet it is the "non-politician" that seems to have the biggest truth deficit this time around... hmmmmm
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:19 PM (3JA/M)
392
He went their specifically to bash Obama over the head with the 'crisis' at the border at that time.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (KEA7I)
It was a 'crisis' and a "tragedy" for US, not for the illegals - as Cruz's own PR flac thought in the piece I pasted.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:17 PM (KEA7I)
It was a 'crisis' and a "tragedy" for US, not for the illegals - as Cruz's own PR flac thought in the piece I pasted.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 04:20 PM (zc3Db)
393
No thanks -- no rethinking here. Good luck and have a nice day Mr. Cannibal.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (MpfHK)
Thanks. I think I'm going to change my handle
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (MpfHK)
Thanks. I think I'm going to change my handle
Posted by: Mr. Cannibal at April 04, 2016 04:21 PM (gUBMA)
394
Except the States do not have jurisdiction over illegal aliens.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:18 PM (KEA7I)
But under principles of federalism, apportionment is left to the states. Also, since they use census data to apportion, there is no good way (other than deportation which might affect the next census) to exclude any group of people.
Posted by: Joe Hallenbeck at April 04, 2016 04:18 PM (KEA7I)
But under principles of federalism, apportionment is left to the states. Also, since they use census data to apportion, there is no good way (other than deportation which might affect the next census) to exclude any group of people.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:22 PM (3JA/M)
395
And yet it is the "non-politician" that seems to have the biggest truth deficit this time around... hmmmmm
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:19 PM (3JA/M)
Other than Michelle Fields and his position changes re: a complete hypothetical regarding abortion, which culminated in a promise to let the SCOTUS and the congress be the ones who implement any change on the issue, what would you say he's lied about?
Please cite just one thing, the crying about how crazy and insane and out of touch I am is getting old.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:19 PM (3JA/M)
Other than Michelle Fields and his position changes re: a complete hypothetical regarding abortion, which culminated in a promise to let the SCOTUS and the congress be the ones who implement any change on the issue, what would you say he's lied about?
Please cite just one thing, the crying about how crazy and insane and out of touch I am is getting old.
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 04:25 PM (xuouz)
396
No thanks -- no rethinking here. Good luck and have a nice day Mr. Cannibal.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (MpfHK)
Thanks. I think I'm going to change my handle
Posted by: Mr. Cannibal at April 04, 2016 04:21 PM (gUBMA
__________
Perfect. I'll count that as your comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:11 PM (MpfHK)
Thanks. I think I'm going to change my handle
Posted by: Mr. Cannibal at April 04, 2016 04:21 PM (gUBMA
__________
Perfect. I'll count that as your comeuppance.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 04:25 PM (MpfHK)
397
And yet it is the "non-politician" that seems to have the biggest truth deficit this time around... hmmmmm
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:19 PM (3JA/M)
This is actually much more complicated than it sounds. You have to look at what they're offering. They are both from establishment groups, and they're both offering to betray their groups. They've both made contradictory statements in the past, but that's to be expected since it was required to remain in their groups. They might both be lying, or telling the truth or either could. We simply don't know since only they know their true positions. I'm simply choosing to support the guy who brought my issue to the table, before he swept it off the table with his yuge personality, instead of the politician. See previous mentioned law of the universe.
Posted by: redbanzai at April 04, 2016 04:19 PM (3JA/M)
This is actually much more complicated than it sounds. You have to look at what they're offering. They are both from establishment groups, and they're both offering to betray their groups. They've both made contradictory statements in the past, but that's to be expected since it was required to remain in their groups. They might both be lying, or telling the truth or either could. We simply don't know since only they know their true positions. I'm simply choosing to support the guy who brought my issue to the table, before he swept it off the table with his yuge personality, instead of the politician. See previous mentioned law of the universe.
Posted by: Mr. Cannibal at April 04, 2016 04:28 PM (gUBMA)
Posted by: Ghost of kari - certified inane at April 04, 2016 04:31 PM (xuouz)
399
Ace, you say that the districts "must" but my understanding is that it is permissible, not mandatory. (Via Andrew Grossman @ the Cato Institute)
Posted by: xman phife at April 04, 2016 04:37 PM (H3WNZ)
400
Could we have a compromise? Like maybe illegal aliens could count as 2/3 of a person....
Posted by: Dogbert at April 04, 2016 04:40 PM (fz1Nv)
401
<400
Could we have a compromise? Like maybe illegal aliens could count as 2/3 of a person....> 3/5s is soooo 1791.
Could we have a compromise? Like maybe illegal aliens could count as 2/3 of a person....> 3/5s is soooo 1791.
Posted by: centralscrutinizer at April 04, 2016 05:31 PM (vI+F1)
402
On the other hand, those I. districts that have a lot of illegal aliens aren't so removed from the problems they cause. So, they legally vote and may be voting against those problems. However, you need to weigh Texas and Arizona versus California...
Posted by: West Town at April 04, 2016 05:44 PM (twIDy)
403
338
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
----------
Exactly
Yep -- as I said, Ace and others who trumpet the
'our masters' and RINO elite rhetoric without knowing the facts (low
info) have given us Trump and his angry low info supporters.
Posted by: Alix at April 04, 2016 03:26 PM (MpfHK)
----------
Exactly
Posted by: Alabi at April 04, 2016 05:50 PM (89I+i)
404
Ace, you are factually incorrect.
The ruling was that the states could include non-voters, not that they must.
Read Thomas' concurrance.
The ruling was that the states could include non-voters, not that they must.
Read Thomas' concurrance.
Posted by: The Political Hat at April 04, 2016 05:52 PM (vBeA5)
405
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (zc3Db)
---Why? What exactly gives the federal government authority to decide that? Where does the Constitution prescribes a basis for apportionment within states?
The decision is incorrect. States shouldn't even have the option of counting illegals for "representation".
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at April 04, 2016 03:50 PM (zc3Db)
---Why? What exactly gives the federal government authority to decide that? Where does the Constitution prescribes a basis for apportionment within states?
Posted by: Alabi at April 04, 2016 05:54 PM (89I+i)
406
On the other hand, each voter in one of those districts whom we can dissuade from voting is worth 1.4 voters sitting home watching Oprah.
Posted by: J Moses Browning at April 04, 2016 06:18 PM (fF3W6)
407
AIUI, the ruling isn't saying "you have to count everyone". Rather, a complainant was saying "they're counting everyone, which is unconstitutional, they can only count citizens"; and the court is unanimously saying "no, if they want to base it off total population, they can".
Posted by: shoutingboy at April 04, 2016 06:36 PM (hj9/K)
408
Representation Without Taxation!!!
Posted by: scrood at April 04, 2016 07:13 PM (3b9U4)
409
Or, in other words, blue states are importing illegal aliens en masse so they can outvote red states.
Posted by: cthulhu at April 04, 2016 08:03 PM (EzgxV)
410
Did John Roberts correct the spelling and interpret it for us?
Posted by: Rev Al at April 04, 2016 09:30 PM (HgTBl)
411
ace,
Gee, I wonder how this very predictable SCOTUS will view the eligibility standing of Mr. Cruz?
One wonders.
It's not like there are four Justices (out of eight, currently) on the Court who will automatically vote against conservative interests at every given opportunity.
- Naaaahh, that would NEVER happen.
Why, that would be beneath their dignity.
ace,
Gee, I wonder how this very predictable SCOTUS will view the eligibility standing of Mr. Cruz?
One wonders.
It's not like there are four Justices (out of eight, currently) on the Court who will automatically vote against conservative interests at every given opportunity.
- Naaaahh, that would NEVER happen.
Why, that would be beneath their dignity.
Posted by: Testy Stoic Trumpublican at April 04, 2016 09:47 PM (AhiRu)
412
They should only lyrics count 3/5 of them.
Posted by: cornbred at April 05, 2016 12:45 AM (39H9u)
413
Three-fifths Compromise.
Look it up. Then tell me again that counting non-voters for purposes of determining representation is a wildly new idea.
Look it up. Then tell me again that counting non-voters for purposes of determining representation is a wildly new idea.
Posted by: DriveBy at April 05, 2016 01:08 AM (C9Vc8)
414
This Ruling DID NOT require a State to use total population it said they could and in fact it is thenorm and has been since the first apportionment. From the decision:
"Held: As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a State or locality may draw its legislative districts on total population." - Evenwel et al. v Abbott, Governor of Texas et al.
Read the thing before making wild assumptions.
This Ruling DID NOT require a State to use total population it said they could and in fact it is thenorm and has been since the first apportionment. From the decision:
"Held: As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a State or locality may draw its legislative districts on total population." - Evenwel et al. v Abbott, Governor of Texas et al.
Read the thing before making wild assumptions.
Posted by: Charles Epperson at April 05, 2016 02:14 PM (Fyntg)
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.082 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0249 seconds, 422 records returned.
Page size 234 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat