Supreme Court says NO sxrew you Alabama

[1blackman1]

Alabama decided to ignore the federal courts’ directive to create two majority black congressional districts. Giving the big middle finger to the courts.

Well, the courts struck back and decided to draw the districts themselves. The Supreme Court backed them up.

I guess Louisiana and Mississippi will be next.

I remember a time when these same republican supreme court appointees claimed there was no racism in States voting or redistricting. I suppose Alabama shed light for them to see.

[winn dixie]

Is Chicago Illinois better?
Just the usual banter of drawing congressional lines.
No matter how you draw it up. Someone will complain. To the winner goes the spoils

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Is Chicago Illinois better?
Just the usual banter of drawing congressional lines.
No matter how you draw it up. Someone will complain. To the winner goes the spoils

No, not a dam bit.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Is Chicago Illinois better?
Just the usual banter of drawing congressional lines.
No matter how you draw it up. Someone will complain. To the winner goes the spoils

Yes, Maryland is the worst. New Mexico is another example. The southern and eastern parts of the state are deep red, but somehow all the Congressmen are Democrats. New York tried to gerrymander out Republicans recently but got shut down by the courts.

In 2022, Democratic Congressional candidates won only 47.8% of the popular vote, compared to 50.6% for Republicans. But Democrats got 48.9% of Congressional seats.

Looking at the big picture, Democrats are not handicapped by alleged Republican gaming of the system. Unfortunately some of our Democratic friends, like Blackman, don't understand that. Likewise some of our Republican friends wrongly believe that Biden stole the 2020 election.

Sincerely,

Fair and Balanced Tiny

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Looking at the big picture, Democrats are not handicapped by alleged Republican gaming of the system. Unfortunately some of our Democratic friends, like Blackman, don't understand that. Likewise some of our Republican friends wrongly believe that Biden stole the 2020 election.

Obviously you don't live in Texas. One of the most gerrymandered states in the country.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ndered-states/

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, Maryland is the worst. New Mexico is another example. The southern and eastern parts of the state are deep red, but somehow all the Congressmen are Democrats. New York tried to gerrymander out Republicans recently but got shut down by the courts.

In 2022, Democratic Congressional candidates won only 47.8% of the popular vote, compared to 50.6% for Republicans. But Democrats got 48.9% of Congressional seats.

Looking at the big picture, Democrats are not handicapped by alleged Republican gaming of the system. Unfortunately some of our Democratic friends, like Blackman, don't understand that. Likewise some of our Republican friends wrongly believe that Biden stole the 2020 election.

Sincerely,

Fair and Balanced Tiny

That’s a rather nonsensical way of looking at it. You should know better. Actually, I’m sure you do but spout right wing silliness anyway.

Let’s go back to 2016. The popular vote totals were 49% to 48% in favor of republicans. I suppose you’d believe they would have 50% of the house rather than the whopping 55% of seats 241 to Dems 194.

Looking at popular vote as a measure of congressional seats means nothing at all.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Obviously you don't live in Texas. One of the most gerrymandered states in the country.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ndered-states/

Did you read the article? Three of the five most gerrymandered states according to Azavea went for Biden. Three of the top seven most gerrymandered identified by the "liberal" Brennan Center went for Biden. And Four of the top seven named for the Brookings/Pew study went for Biden.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That’s a rather nonsensical way of looking at it. You should know better. Actually, I’m sure you do but spout right wing silliness anyway.

I don't fall for silliness and you shouldn't either. You must watch too much MSNBC.

Somebody should physically force you to watch Tucker Carlson for 36 hours straight. Then at the end hook your head up to some kind of contraption where snarling, yellow-toothed, foul-smelling rats will chew through your tongue unless you interpose a mental image of a giant Tucker Carlson between you and the rats. Kind of like the end of Orwell's 1984.

Then you would love Tucker as much as Salty, Hedonist and the Waco Kid! And you could get a head start on what you'll need to thrive after Trump takes control of the government, the press and military in 2024!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Let’s go back to 2016. The popular vote totals were 49% to 48% in favor of republicans. I suppose you’d believe they would have 50% of the house rather than the whopping 55% of seats 241 to Dems 194.

Looking at popular vote as a measure of congressional seats means nothing at all.

About your edit, since and including the 2018 election, the popular vote has mirrored the actual number of seats each party received in the House. In 2016, yes, you are correct.

And I'm proud of you. Since you believe the popular vote as a measure of Congressional seats means nothing at all, then you'll agree that the popular vote in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 meant nothing at all too.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't fall for silliness and you shouldn't either. You must watch too much MSNBC.

Somebody should physically force you to watch Tucker Carlson for 36 hours straight. Then at the end hook your head up to some kind of contraption where snarling, yellow-toothed, foul-smelling rats will chew through your tongue unless you interpose a mental image of a giant Tucker Carlson between you and the rats. Kind of like the end of Orwell's 1984.

Then you would love Tucker as much as Salty, Hedonist and the Waco Kid! And you could get a head start on what you'll need to thrive after Trump takes control of the government, the press and military in 2024!

Lol
Snick

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't fall for silliness and you shouldn't either. You must watch too much MSNBC.

Somebody should physically force you to watch Tucker Carlson for 36 hours straight. Then at the end hook your head up to some kind of contraption where snarling, yellow-toothed, foul-smelling rats will chew through your tongue unless you interpose a mental image of a giant Tucker Carlson between you and the rats. Kind of like the end of Orwell's 1984.

Then you would love Tucker as much as Salty, Hedonist and the Waco Kid! And you could get a head start on what you'll need to thrive after Trump takes control of the government, the press and military in 2024!

... Crikey! ... Just spilled-over me beer from laughing!

Can't say that yer post is inaccurate, mate...

#### Salty

[Ripmany]

In Alabama can I still have sex with my cousin. Only if I have cousins in Alabama.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

About your edit, since and including the 2018 election, the popular vote has mirrored the actual number of seats each party received in the House. In 2016, yes, you are correct.

And I'm proud of you. Since you believe the popular vote as a measure of Congressional seats means nothing at all, then you'll agree that the popular vote in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 meant nothing at all too.

You’re correct that popular votes in the presidential elections have no real meaning. There’s about 6-7 states that are relevant. Which I suspect was never the founders intent either. But it’s the result our two party system has created.

Anyway as to the actual subject of this thread. Alabama decided they’d tell the courts screw you and keep drawing favorable districts. Since they aren’t racist down there (the Supreme Court said so in their prior decisions on things like affirmative action and particularly the voting rights act, and my Tiny says so as well), I suppose they had some other legitimate rationale for drawing lines as they did.

Regardless, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the judge to redraw the map in accordance with minority representation 1) acknowledges silently that maybe racism still exists, 2) that some institutional racism still exists, and 3) the courts still have to take control where racist actions by institutions continue (such as the Bama legislature. Next will be Mississippi and Louisiana, maybe Arkansas. That’s as possible 3 likely Democratic congressman added in the next election.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You’re correct that popular votes in the presidential elections have no real meaning. There’s about 6-7 states that are relevant. Which I suspect was never the founders intent either. But it’s the result our two party system has created.

Anyway as to the actual subject of this thread. Alabama decided they’d tell the courts screw you and keep drawing favorable districts. Since they aren’t racist down there (the Supreme Court said so in their prior decisions on things like affirmative action and particularly the voting rights act, and my Tiny says so as well), I suppose they had some other legitimate rationale for drawing lines as they did.

Regardless, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the judge to redraw the map in accordance with minority representation 1) acknowledges silently that maybe racism still exists, 2) that some institutional racism still exists, and 3) the courts still have to take control where racist actions by institutions continue (such as the Bama legislature. Next will be Mississippi and Louisiana, maybe Arkansas. That’s as possible 3 likely Democratic congressman added in the next election.

About the bold text I highlighted, I suspect the gerrymandering in Alabama had nothing to do with racism. Rather its purpose was to give Republicans an unfair advantage. The people drawing the lines didn't give a rat's ass whether the population of a Democratic-voting community was 90% African American or 90% white intellectuals and liberal arts students. What was important was the voting preference and how the geographic area could be integrated into a Congressional district in a way that would dilute Democratic Party representation.

OK counselor, you're a lawyer and the rest of us aren't. Perhaps you could correct my misconceptions about gerrymanders and Congressional districts. Apparently the federal courts may intervene on the side of Democrats in Republican states like Alabama, provided it can be shown that Democratic voters, many of whom happen to be black, are disadvantaged. In other words, if a bogus argument about racism can be made. But they aren't allowed to intervene in states like Maryland and New Mexico where blue collar workers and others (i.e. Republicans) are disadvantaged. In Maryland, Democrats occupy 7 of 8 Congressional seats and in New Mexico, all three seats as a result of partisan gerrymanders.

I note that in New York the state courts had to intervene to prevent an extremely partisan gerrymander. The feds had nothing to do with it.

So, my questions, am I correct? Are federal courts only able to intervene if race is called into question? And do you think that's fair?

Btw, if we were arguing about gerrymanders that affect the results of local and state elections you'd probably have a stronger case. At the national level, on average through the years, each party's share of House seats hasn't varied that much from their share of total House popular vote. Also, contrary to what you wrote, I said nothing and know little about affirmative action and voting rights in Alabama.

[1blackman1]

It’s pretty simple Tiny, you can’t discriminate because of race, color, sex, etc. You can discriminate as much as you like because of political views. In states like Bama, Mississippi and my beautiful home state of Lousyana, racism has and sadly long will be its legacy irrespective of political leanings. Drawing districts in a way that dilutes the black vote, particularly considering the black v white population, isn’t acceptable. If you have a state that’s minority white and they were being precluded from representation, they’d get the court’s favor as well.

In states like North Carolina and Texas, screwy as hell districts have been drawn to advantage republicans. Maryland Cali and NY will likely get even more so after the next census. I’d prefer no gerrymandering but as long as we choose congressman and senators locally (well supposedly) we’ll get stuck with that. Many other options have been suggested but unsurprisingly current congresspeople and republicans in general hate every idea that could result in them losing the thin grip they hold through gerrymandered districts.