Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ElbertoHokie »

drawn Pennsylvania congressional districts. The districts were revised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to what they considered gerrymandered districts put forth by the Pennsylvania legislature.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... strict-map
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ElbertoHokie wrote:drawn Pennsylvania congressional districts. The districts were revised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to what they considered gerrymandered districts put forth by the Pennsylvania legislature.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... strict-map
ok
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by Major Kong »

All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ElbertoHokie »

Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ElbertoHokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
So then why didn't the Supreme Court, a conservative leaning one, elect to do anything about it?

And just because it has always been done that way, that doesn't mean it is the right way. Most expensive words in business, "That's how we've always done it."
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:drawn Pennsylvania congressional districts. The districts were revised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to what they considered gerrymandered districts put forth by the Pennsylvania legislature.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... strict-map
ok
I agree MK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ElbertoHokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
So then why didn't the Supreme Court, a conservative leaning one, elect to do anything about it?

And just because it has always been done that way, that doesn't mean it is the right way. Most expensive words in business, "That's how we've always done it."
Conservative leanings??? WTF are you talking about?
Democrats hold a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... cision?amp

And if people don’t like the “gerrymandering” from the legislature they can vote them out at the ballot box. These judges are clearly overstepping the separation of powers and they are not beholden to the electorate.

These are partisan Democrat activist judges abusing their power. Nothing more nothing less. And to suggest their actions are nonpartisan is laughable.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
Jack Galt
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:55 am
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: none of the above
Location: Secret hideout in Colorado

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by Jack Galt »

ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
You think NC and PA are cray-cray? Have you not seen the gerrymandering committed by both parties in VA?

Image

This was the VA 3rd. Bobby Scott has had it since 1993.

Image
"Russia? The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” - B. Obama

Image
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ip_law-hokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
So then why didn't the Supreme Court, a conservative leaning one, elect to do anything about it?

And just because it has always been done that way, that doesn't mean it is the right way. Most expensive words in business, "That's how we've always done it."
Conservative leanings??? WTF are you talking about?
Democrats hold a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... cision?amp

And if people don’t like the “gerrymandering” from the legislature they can vote them out at the ballot box. These judges are clearly overstepping the separation of powers and they are not beholden to the electorate.

These are partisan Democrat activist judges abusing their power. Nothing more nothing less. And to suggest their actions are nonpartisan is laughable.
Didn’t they determine that the district - that the democrat won - was improperly gerrymandered in favor of Republicans?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by ElbertoHokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
So then why didn't the Supreme Court, a conservative leaning one, elect to do anything about it?

And just because it has always been done that way, that doesn't mean it is the right way. Most expensive words in business, "That's how we've always done it."
Conservative leanings??? WTF are you talking about?
Democrats hold a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... cision?amp

And if people don’t like the “gerrymandering” from the legislature they can vote them out at the ballot box. These judges are clearly overstepping the separation of powers and they are not beholden to the electorate.

These are partisan Democrat activist judges abusing their power. Nothing more nothing less. And to suggest their actions are nonpartisan is laughable.
The federal supreme court refused to hear the case. Not the state. Federal.

This is adorable. How do you vote people out at the ballot box if your district has been gerrymandered?! That's the whole f$%^ing point. They stack and pack districts to minimize opposition representation in the legislation. The only reason the impeachment they're suddenly attempting of 4 judges may have a chance is because...drumroll...the state's districts are gerrymandered. The last impeachment in Pennsylvania was in 1994 when a judge was impeached for committing a felony. Like it should be done.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ElbertoHokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:All States should have independent, non partisan committees draw new congressional districts. Arizona does this.
Agreed.

It was a spoken strategy by Republicans to retake state legislatures after 2008 in order to be able to draw the district lines after the 2010 census. It worked for the most part until they went a little cray cray in NC and Pennsylvania. Now let me balance it and say democrats do the same thing when they're in power.

Non-partisan committee should do it. Not the party in power.
Just so we're all clear here, the PA Supreme Court's redistricting was anything but non-partisan. And the fact of the matter is, the state legislatures get to draw the districts every 10 years. Whatever party is in power has always had that power. This is the first time when a partisan court has stepped in just because they did not like the districts that were drawn by the opposition party.
So then why didn't the Supreme Court, a conservative leaning one, elect to do anything about it?

And just because it has always been done that way, that doesn't mean it is the right way. Most expensive words in business, "That's how we've always done it."
Conservative leanings??? WTF are you talking about?
Democrats hold a 5-2 majority on the state Supreme Court.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... cision?amp

And if people don’t like the “gerrymandering” from the legislature they can vote them out at the ballot box. These judges are clearly overstepping the separation of powers and they are not beholden to the electorate.

These are partisan Democrat activist judges abusing their power. Nothing more nothing less. And to suggest their actions are nonpartisan is laughable.
The federal supreme court refused to hear the case. Not the state. Federal.

This is adorable. How do you vote people out at the ballot box if your district has been gerrymandered?! That's the whole f$%^ing point. They stack and pack districts to minimize opposition representation in the legislation. The only reason the impeachment they're suddenly attempting of 4 judges may have a chance is because...drumroll...the state's districts are gerrymandered. The last impeachment in Pennsylvania was in 1994 when a judge was impeached for committing a felony. Like it should be done.
Oh you were talking about the FEDERAL supreme court? Good grief, okay then the "conservative leaning" federal court actually followed the Constitution in this case. They recognized that they had no jurisdiction here. Why would you even think that the federal SCOTUS should be able to do something about this????

We're talking about the actions of the state supreme court. And if gerrymandering means that you can never vote a party out of power, then how did the Republicans ever win back the congress in the first place? The GOP did not invent gerrymandering.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ElbertoHokie wrote:drawn Pennsylvania congressional districts. The districts were revised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to what they considered gerrymandered districts put forth by the Pennsylvania legislature.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... strict-map
you may have missed the point, in general the US SC does not mess with the states deal in districting, they leave that to the states so the scotus not hearing it is not at all surprising
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by 133743Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ElbertoHokie wrote:drawn Pennsylvania congressional districts. The districts were revised by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to what they considered gerrymandered districts put forth by the Pennsylvania legislature.

http://www.readingeagle.com/news/articl ... strict-map
you may have missed the point, in general the US SC does not mess with the states deal in districting, they leave that to the states so the scotus not hearing it is not at all surprising
Agree. But the state supreme court should have stayed out of it as well. Redistricting is a political process, not a legal one. The courts have no business sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong. They interjected solely for political reasons.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by RiverguyVT »

I laugh when leftists assume gerrymandering is an R thing.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26373
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear arguments against newly

Post by HokieHam »

RiverguyVT wrote:I laugh when leftists assume gerrymandering is an R thing.
I laugh at all leftists assumptions.
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Post Reply