SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »

Not My Leg: Nov 6, 2002; AYN RAND AKBAR!

evilweasel posted:

It happens when you've got bigger states and are trying to get like 10 out of 13 seats.

People vastly overestimate how close you need to make districts to engage in effective gerrymandering. Let's use your example of a 13 district state, you want to win 10 seats, and let's assume a 50-50 split in voter preferences. To make things easy, I'm going to use 1,300 voters total in the state, 100/district.

First, spread the Republicans around. You have 650 republicans, and 10 districts. We don't want a completely ridiculous scenario where there are literally 0 Republicans in the Democratic seats, so let's hold back 50 to spread around those districts. That leaves us 600 Republicans for 10 districts, resulting in 10 districts split 60-40 in favor of the Republicans. The remaining Republicans get spread around the last three districts (17 in two, 16 in the other), along with the Democratic voters, resulting in two 17-83 districts, and one 16-84 district.

That's not a particularly ridiculous split. The 16-84 district would be somewhere around the 35th most stacked district in the nation, the other two would be top 40-45.

As for how safe the 20 point districts would be for Republicans. There are 229 districts with a PVI of +11 or more in favor of one party or the other.* Of those districts, just three are held by a member of the opposite party; slightly over one percent. Essentially, this gerrymander turns 10 seats into near guaranteed wins for Republicans, and a population that is split 50-50 has a congressional delegation that's nearly 80 percent Republican.

No actual gerrymander would be as perfect as this hypothetical, but it's just not true that manufacturing huge advantages in representation requires creating vulnerable seats.

*PVI is calculated based on how more favorable a district was toward a party than the electorate as a whole was toward the party's presidential candidate. Since the last election was 49R-51D, a district that's 60R-40D is R+11.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 01:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 10:06

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

It doesn't require creating vulnerable seats. However, if you get greedy, you can shave your margins thin enough that so while they were safe at the beginning, a little demographic shift makes them far more competitive than you planned at the end. That's the key: the decay of the gerrymander as the new census approaches.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 02:03

Deuce: Jun 18, 2004; Mile High Club

edit: oh hey im a ways behind

Deuce fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 9, 2014

# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:10

Not My Leg: Nov 6, 2002; AYN RAND AKBAR!

evilweasel posted:

It doesn't require creating vulnerable seats. However, if you get greedy, you can shave your margins thin enough that so while they were safe at the beginning, a little demographic shift makes them far more competitive than you planned at the end. That's the key: the decay of the gerrymander as the new census approaches.

That's true. Do you know if there's any published research on this? My gut tells me the impact may be relatively small, but I'm not basing that on anything other than my gut.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:00

Bizarro Kanyon: Jan 3, 2007; Something Awful, so easy even a spaceman can do it!

Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers)

http://i.imgur.com/b5I1PqP.png

# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:02

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

size1one posted:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem

It would be a great irony (and justice) that if by asserting your personal rights through a corporation that you give up the protections corporations provide. Of course, SCOTUS would never take away those protections.

Isn't there a case kinda like this right now where a SWAT team in Mass. is claiming it's a private corperation when it comes to FOIA requests? Really, I'm fine with bringing the hammer down hard on these assholes who want all the protections with none of the consequences because of poo poo like this.

e: Here it is.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27/1309949/-Mass-SWAT-Teams-Deny-Records-Request-Claiming-They-Are-Private-Corporations

A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 9, 2014

# ? Jul 9, 2014 20:07

Deuce: Jun 18, 2004; Mile High Club

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers)

http://i.imgur.com/b5I1PqP.png

Utah. I am so goddamned :smug:

right now.

# ? Jul 9, 2014 22:03

Chris James 2: Aug 9, 2012

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers)

http://i.imgur.com/b5I1PqP.png

@SCOTUSblog 2:54 PM
we literally CANNOT WAIT to see the tweets directed at us in June 2015

Neither can I :getin:

# ? Jul 9, 2014 22:06

Chokes McGee: Aug 7, 2008; This is Urotsuki.

Bizarro Kanyon posted:

Here comes gay marriage to the Supreme Court (bonus: SCOTUSBLOG calling out the inevitable decision numbers)

I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books.

I may be wrong but I think the odds would make it worth betting. :colbert:

# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:48

razorrozar: Feb 21, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Chokes McGee posted:

I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books.

I may be wrong but I think the odds would make it worth betting.

Pascal's Gayger?

# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:10

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Chokes McGee posted:

I think it'll be 6-3, personally. Roberts will jump on board when it's obvious this train isn't stopping, just so he can get his name in the books.

I may be wrong but I think the odds would make it worth betting.

Presumably Thomas feels this is a decision that needs to be left to the States. Does Alito have a stated reason to oppose gay marriage?

# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:49

Crows Turn Off: Jan 7, 2008

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Presumably Thomas feels this is a decision that needs to be left to the States.

That's funny considering Thomas has a white wife. I'm sure we all know the history of interracial marriage and how his situation would be different if left to the states.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:35

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Crows Turn Off posted:

That's funny considering Thomas has a white wife. I'm sure we all know the history of interracial marriage and how his situation would be different if left to the states.

I guarantee that old coot would opine in favor of letting states ban miscegenation, right now this very day.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:52

Precambrian: Apr 30, 2008

mdemone posted:

I guarantee that old coot would opine in favor of letting states ban miscegenation, right now this very day.

Justice Thomas actually does believe that Loving was unconstitutional, that he would have dissented, and that, without federal intervention, those laws would have been repealed naturally. He is perfectly content with throwing everyone in America under the bus, including himself, to uphold his strict originalism.

# ? Jul 10, 2014 23:59

Kiwi Ghost Chips: Feb 19, 2011; Start using the best desktop environment now!
Choose KDE!

Precambrian posted:

Justice Thomas actually does believe that Loving was unconstitutional, that he would have dissented, and that, without federal intervention, those laws would have been repealed naturally. He is perfectly content with throwing everyone in America under the bus, including himself, to uphold his strict originalism.

No he doesn't.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 00:00

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

I thought Thomas did remark in an interview he probably would have held up Virginia law had he been on the court?

# ? Jul 11, 2014 00:21

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Thomas has said nothing, if I recall, but he's pretty much been straight up asked 'hey what do you think' and gone 'haha no I have nothing to say' which like, from a dude who couldn't be more a puppet if he had a hand up his rear end, it's pretty clear he agrees with his buddies.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:34

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

It's not entirely fair to claim that Thomas is a puppet, he's a strict originalist but AFAIK he's consistent in that regard.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:45

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

He's a strict originalist that guys like Scalia know how to play to.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 01:51

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

He's just a guy lucky enough to have a job where he can nap all day and nobody can say poo poo about it.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:00

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Thomas said exactly what Precambrian said he did:

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/29/justice-thomas-declares-his-own-marriage-unconstitutional/

quote:

�I know that people are going to go all off the rails when they find out my opinion on the Loving decision. It�s important to stress that I am not in favor of any sort of anti-miscegenation law. All I am saying is that if I had been on the court in �67 I would probably have decided that those laws are best left to the discretion of the states. At the time of that decision there were only 16 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws. If the court had found in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia those laws would eventually all been repealed on a state by state basis. The reality is that all 16 of those states have abolished those laws, the last one was in Alabama in 2000. If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.�

# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:15

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

At least Thomas has good taste in comics.
http://dwaynemcduffie.com/opinions/archives/BTYB10.php

Dwayne McDuffie, inventor of Milestone Comics, Damage Control, responsible for most of the Justice League Cartoon, and, last, but not least, the guy who wrote this:

quote:

My writer's block was back again and I blame the courts. I usually write all day with CNN playing in the background. That means I've been continually assaulted this week by the audio tapes of the Supreme Court hearing on our Presidential Election. You may have heard something about this. Anyway, thinking about the Supreme Court reminded me of Justice Clarence Thomas and my eerie, undue influence on him. Seriously, he's putty in my hands.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? Let me explain.

Back in 1993, my company Milestone Media had just launched its new line of comic books. From our cramped, dingy and yet incredibly high-rent Manhattan offices, we labored to turn out four comics a month. But it wasn't all hard work. Sometimes for instance, we got cranked. Our office Manager Christine Gilliam buzzed my partner, Derek Dingle.

"There's a call for you on line 2. It's Clarence Thomas."

Derek wasn't amused. "I see. Tell him I'll call him back."

Christine took the message. Several hours later, intern Jason Scott Jones, who surely should have been doing something better with his time, took a look at the phone number on the message: Washington area code. Could this possibly be for real? Derek decided to call and see. I decided to watch, as did everyone else in the office. The line rang once, and was instantly picked up.

"Justice Thomas' chambers."

"This is Derek Dingle from Milestone Media, returni�"

"He's expecting your call, one moment please."

Instants later, Derek is chatting away with a Supreme Court Justice who, it turns out, was a big comic book fan in his younger days, collecting, among other favorites, almost a complete set of Marvel's Rawhide Kid. Then came the jaw-dropper. Justice Thomas had just called to let us know he was a big Milestone fan. He really liked Hardware, he said, but his favorite was Icon, a title that featured a character who is, like himself, a black conservative. There was more to the conversation but I missed most of it due to the small stroke I'd just had. The thing is, while Clarence Thomas likes my stuff, I most decidedly don't like his stuff. Look, I'm politically to the left of� well, everybody, actually. On the other hand, Justice Thomas is a truly uncommon creature, a black political conservative. Now, if you only see black men on cable news talk shows, where all black men are conservatives (Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams) you probably don't think this is unusual. Well trust me, it is. It's really quite difficult to find an African-American who (like Justice Thomas) was alive during Jim Crow, who actually saw the Voting Rights Act end legal discrimination at the polls, and who is the successful beneficiary of Affirmative Action (but now says that he's against it). It was easier to justify my character Icon having those beliefs; he's also a space alien who can fly. Back here on Earth, the genuine article is a bit more of a rarity, mostly they're children of financial means who haven't been smacked in the face with the reality of their situation quite yet. Trust me, in 20 years they're going to grow into a bumper crop of scary radicals. Hell hath no fury like a neocon scorned.
In addition to the differences in opinion listed above, Justice Thomas was also on my bad side for another reason. He was the replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, a personal hero of mine. Marshall was the man who successfully argued Brown v. The Board of Education and later became the first black Supreme Court Justice. In my opinion, given his way, Justice Thomas would cheerfully undo everything Marshall had helped to accomplish. I had only recently stopped referring to him as "Uncle Thomas" (true, I had replaced it with the epithet, "Scalia's Lapdog" but it was an improvement). And this was the man who liked my stuff. I remember consoling myself thinking, "At least things can't get any worse." That was foreshadowing, folks.
Justice Thomas was so charmed by Derek, he invited him to come visit him in Washington. No way a political junkie like Derek was going to pass on an opportunity like that. A few weeks later, bearing as gifts several rare issues of Rawhide Kid to fill in the Justice's collection, Derek made the trip. He got a full tour and traded stories with Justice Thomas, who, it turned out, has a good sense of humor. When Derek thanked him for taking time out of what must be a very busy schedule, Justice Thomas replied dryly "You'd be surprised how much free time I have." He also jokingly (but accurately) referred to himself as "the only black man in America with job security." When he got back to New York, Derek told us all about the hour or so he spent with the man. Then Derek turned to me with his special, scary, smile, the one he only uses when he beats somebody particularly badly in a contract negotiation.

"Thomas is a really big fan of yours, you know."

"I know."

"I was in his chambers. It's just like you'd think: dusty law books from floor to ceiling, clerks working industriously on serious legal matters." "Uh, huh."

"He also has a complete set of Icon there. He showed me the leather binder he keeps them in."

"Binder."

"Some of them were out, though. He has his clerks indexing them."

"Indexing?"

"He has them go through and pull out quotes of things Icon says that he agrees with. They mark them with Post-it notes. That way when he wants to use them in his speeches�"

"I beg your pardon?"

"He quotes Icon in papers and speeches. Rather, since you write those lines, he quotes you."

As it turned out, Derek wasn't pulling my leg (although he was enjoying my discomfort unduly). I shook my head and walked away, the hysterical laughter of my partners ringing in my ears. It all died down pretty quickly, although my brother took to calling me "Peggy Noonan" (after Ronald Reagan's speechwriter) for several months after he heard the story. The real problem didn't come to light until I sat down to write the next script for Icon.

And couldn't.

Every time I started to write dialog for Icon, I froze. "What will Clarence Thomas make of this?" I'd think, "Am I unwittingly aiding the black neocon movement?" Fortunately, I was able to get back into the game in a few weeks (and fill-ins by Kurt Busiek and Jackie Ching kept the book on schedule until I got my chops back).

So the current Supreme Court battle for the future of our country threatened to block me again (okay, the next two years. Whatever the outcome, we're going to clean house -and Senate- at the midterms). The pressure is tremendous, after all: I've got a Supreme Court Justice in my pocket. How many comic book writers can say that? But I've decided I have to step up to the plate because, as that great American Peter Parker often said, "with great power comes great responsibility." So, at the risk of alienating exactly 49% of my audience, I offer the following scene from an upcoming issue of Icon:
***
Panel 1
Icon strides to the lecturn, frowning as he reads the script Dwayne just handed him.

Icon:
I'm not going to read this.

Dwayne (off-panel):
You will if you still want to be in that graphic novel next year.

Icon:
Tarnation.

Panel 2
Icon composes himself and smiles insincerely as he speaks into the microphone.

Icon:
"I come from a ethically superior alien society. Even our youngest children would realize that the only fair solution would be to perform a complete manual recount."

Off-panel speaker:
And to count all chads and dimples!

Icon:
You stay out of this, Rocket.
***

Justice Thomas? I hope you're still taking notes. Icon has spoken.

Rest in peace, Dwayne.

Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 11, 2014

# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:26

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

evilweasel posted:

Thomas said exactly what Precambrian said he did:

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/29/justice-thomas-declares-his-own-marriage-unconstitutional/

"News That's Almost Reliable"

# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:40

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Thomas seems like a nice guy who has no idea how wrong and monstrous his ideas are. Then I remember that he tried to seduce an employee by putting his public hair on a Pepsi can.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 02:58

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

ComradeCosmobot posted:

"News That's Almost Reliable"

After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source :argh:

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:03

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

evilweasel posted:

After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source

Yea, Free Wood Post is an onion knock-off. Funny satire that pretty much would be an accurate statement from a 'strict originalist' though.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:04

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

evilweasel posted:

After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source

# ? Jul 11, 2014 03:39

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

Warcabbit posted:

At least Thomas has good taste in comics.
http://dwaynemcduffie.com/opinions/archives/BTYB10.php

Dwayne McDuffie, inventor of Milestone Comics, Damage Control, responsible for most of the Justice League Cartoon, and, last, but not least, the guy who wrote this:

Rest in peace, Dwayne.

This may be the best thing I've read all week.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 04:47

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

It makes me feel good to know the Justice League cartoon I loved was made by a pretty swell guy. :unsmith:

# ? Jul 11, 2014 13:36

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

evilweasel posted:

After some googling it appears that I was tricked by the marriage equality thread when Whisky Juvenile posting that without citing it and then didn't look closely when I found the source

He has such crazy hobbies that it seems entirely plausible.

# ? Jul 11, 2014 14:35

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meeting

quote:

"When I heard Justice Scalia answer the rhetorical question, 'What would a prayer from a non-believe sound like? What would an invocation from an atheist sound like?' I realize that he could not even, pulling from the depths of his imagination, come up with an understanding of what a non-believer's invocation would sound like and I thought this was really a problem," Courtney said.

What does an atheist say in an invocation?

"What I'm going to be invoking is an idea, an idea that we can all have in common as citizens and as Americans. Obviously, not invoking a deity, but again that idea. I'm going to be invoking part of the Declaration of Independence and expressing how that idea looks to the people to gain authority for the governing body. And I think in that sense they should be bringing us together instead of this sectarian type of invocation, which divides us."

First Amendment at work!

# ? Jul 15, 2014 13:03

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Green Crayons posted:

Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meeting

First Amendment at work!

"In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court sided with plaintiffs who argued that a secular invocation held during a time set aside prior to a town meeting typically allotted for a religious invocation was an unconstitutional infringement of their right to partake in a religious observance. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted that 'the first amendment provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.'"

# ? Jul 15, 2014 15:39

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right?

# ? Jul 15, 2014 16:40

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Ogmius815 posted:

So this Halbig case is going to destroy Obamacare right?

Eh, the DC Circuit is packed with Obama appointees. Even if the two right-leaning judges on the tribunal pretend to accept the retarded-rear end arguments offered just to stick it to Obama, there's no way an en banc review will uphold that.

# ? Jul 15, 2014 17:08

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me.

# ? Jul 15, 2014 17:42

Kugyou no Tenshi: Nov 8, 2005; We can't keep the crowd waiting, can we?

Ogmius815 posted:

How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me.

The counter-argument (example here) is that the text of the ACA created a requirement, not a restriction, and that the committees that wrote the bill intended for the federal fallback exchange(s) to be able to use subsidies.

Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 15, 2014

# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:05

Ogmius815: Aug 25, 2005; centrism is a hell of a drug

That actually sounds reasonable to my non-attorney ears. Will the circuit court accept it though? Even if it does, what of SCOTUS?

# ? Jul 15, 2014 18:26

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Fifth Circuit holds that the University of Texas's race-conscious admissions program survives strict scrutiny.

I'm betting a revisit to SCOTUS.

# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:52

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Ogmius815 posted:

How are they retarded? The law doesn't give the government the authority it claims it has. I support Obamacare and that much seems clear to me.

If you read the passage in context instead of excerpting a single sentence and sperging over the wording, it's obvious that exchanges established by the federal government were to be treated as equivalent to those established by the states, which is why the first trial judge godsmacked it down.

quote:

If a state (i) is not an �electing State,� (ii) fails to have �a required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014,� or (iii) has not taken the actions necessary to establish an operational Exchange consistent with federal requirements, �the Secretary shall . . . establish and operate
such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.� 42 U.S.C. � 18041(c) (emphasis added). In other words, if a state will not or cannot establish its own Exchange, the ACA directs the Secretary of HHS to
step in and create �such Exchange� � that is, by definition under the statute, �an American Health Benefit Exchange established under [Section 18031].�

The court also points out sections that would be meaningless (like the requirement that the HHS provide the IRS with accounting of the tax credits disbursed through federal exchanges) if Congress has not intended HHS-run exchanges to disburse tax credits. I'm not going to quote it all but it's in there.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jul 15, 2014

# ? Jul 15, 2014 20:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 10:06

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Green Crayons posted:

Atheist Delivering Invocation at Greece Board Meeting

First Amendment at work!

someone post that Church of Satan troll prayer tia

# ? Jul 16, 2014 02:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›838 »