|
When is gerrymandering decision expected?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:When is gerrymandering decision expected? Sometime before the end of June 2018. Could theoretically come any day now but realistically unlikely before March 2018.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:When is gerrymandering decision expected? The Supreme Court is seriously the only entity that can fix it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Oh man I kind of dread this, what with like half the court going "durrr... math?" and Kennedy saying "political gerrymandering is a-ok!" in the NC case a few months back. That or a constitutional convention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That or a constitutional convention. So yeah, only the Supreme Court can do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Theoretically a Democratic legislative sweep could also
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Theoretically a Democratic legislative sweep could also Far more likely and still a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Theoretically a Democratic legislative sweep could also A series of state-by-state initiatives/referenda a la California might help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Unlikely, as Democrats would just gerrymander themselves into power. problem solved either way depending on how you define the problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:problem solved either way depending on how you define the problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That or a constitutional convention. that's not how concons WOOOOOOOOOOORK 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The solution I seek is one of representative government, not sticking it to the red tribe. The solution I seek is healing the damage done by the red storm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that's not If we had a constitutional amendment that specified how representative districts were defined it could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The solution I seek is healing the damage done by the red storm. Perhaps the solution is a red storm though 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That or a constitutional convention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If we had a constitutional amendment that specified how representative districts were defined it could. You know, I rescind a small part of my yelling because it miiiight be easier to squeeze that past state legislatures than the federal legislature because the House exists. Unfortunately, in most (all?) of those states, so do state level districts. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:A constitutional convention right now would be written by the craziest motherfuckers American politics has ever seen. Fortunately it would still loving require ratification by 75% of loving states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Fortunately it would still loving require ratification by 75% of loving states. Meaning the only constitutions that could actually pass such a convention is stuff written by the craziest motherfuckers America has ever known, because they wouldn't ratify anything vaguely sensible and the bulk of the state legislatures are controlled by the craziest motherfuckers' fan clubs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Unlikely, as Democrats would just gerrymander themselves into power. A democratic congress is still likely to have an interest in banning gerrymandering, especially as part of a package of reforms to end antimajoritarian nonsense because democrats are a majority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Theoretically a Democratic legislative sweep could also I'm not going to hold my breath for that when the Dems are probably going to lose the upcoming VA governor's race as a prelude to loving up what should be a blue tidal wave midterm next year. Ynglaur posted:That or a constitutional convention. That would result in us becoming Evangelical Saudia Arabia at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A democratic congress is still likely to have an interest in banning gerrymandering, especially as part of a package of reforms to end antimajoritarian nonsense because democrats are a majority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:When Democrats in California were in such a situation they still gerrymandered the hell out of the state. A side effect of incumbent gerrymandering was complete stagnation as moderates on either side had no hope of making it past primaries. There's a reason it took an initiative to change that system -- the legislature had no reason to vote themselves out of power. Are the democrats in power in the federal government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Are the democrats in power in the federal government? More optimistic, and more likely, is a scenario of split state governments (governor/legislature from different parties). Combine split government with gerrymandered districts and you have a recipe for absolutely nothing happening since there's no incentive to compromise -- that's what it took for California to actually seriously consider electoral reform, and even then it took about 2 decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:When Democrats in California were in such a situation they still gerrymandered the hell out of the state. A side effect of incumbent gerrymandering was complete stagnation as moderates on either side had no hope of making it past primaries. There's a reason it took an initiative to change that system -- the legislature had no reason to vote themselves out of power. Banning gerrymandering in California is unilateral disarmament. Doing it at the congressional level ends it for both sides. I don't favor abolishing gerrymandering in just blue states either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
If a big state university refused to rent space (which is ordinarily made available) to a speaker who, because of the inflammatory nature of his political message, would require security that would make the rental unprofitable, and if that decision were made because of that unprofitability, would that be a content-based state restriction on speech? My instinct would be that it isn't because the desire not to take losses on rentals is content-neutral but I could also see it the other way. Is there law on this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If a big state university refused to rent space (which is ordinarily made available) to a speaker who, because of the inflammatory nature of his political message, would require security that would make the rental unprofitable, and if that decision were made because of that unprofitability, would that be a content-based state restriction on speech? My instinct would be that it isn't because the desire not to take losses on rentals is content-neutral but I could also see it the other way. Is there law on this? Freedom of speech is in the constitution, the right to massive security schemes isn't. The university can only refuse to offer the extra security needed. It would then be up to the speaker to go or not depending on how much they value their speech vs. personal safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Freedom of speech is in the constitution, the right to massive security schemes isn't. The university can only refuse to offer the extra security needed. It would then be up to the speaker to go or not depending on how much they value their speech vs. personal safety. They additionally cannot charge a higher fee to make up for the cost of added security. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement posted:The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. See id., at 321 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially *135 burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.[12] See Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1 (1949).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Freedom of speech is in the constitution, the right to massive security schemes isn't. The university can only refuse to offer the extra security needed. It would then be up to the speaker to go or not depending on how much they value their speech vs. personal safety. The speaker’s personal safety isn’t the only thing on the line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The speaker’s personal safety isn’t the only thing on the line. Yeah I think you pretty much have to provide tightened security to keep students and the community at large safe. Which is too bad because basically it means that the university has to spend a bunch of money so some rear end in a top hat nobody likes can have a forum. Honestly I kind of think the jurisprudence on campus speakers is kind of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the right of assholes that nobody likes to say their piece.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Wait nobody invited Spencer to speak? And they still have to pay his fee? How do I get in on this racket? I'll speak about all sorts of stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait nobody invited Spencer to speak? And they still have to pay his fee? No one who actually works for the university invited him, IIRC he was invited by a student group through proper channels and they had no ability to refuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the right of assholes that nobody likes to say their piece. But there shouldn't be some obligation to subordinate the educational mission of the public universities to that goal, which, practically speaking, is what that line of cases has lead to. The Nazis can say their dumb poo poo some other loving place. The university shouldn't have to face an all or nothing choice on renting their space just because they're a public school.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Yeah, they should, because they shouldn't be in the business of deciding which opinions are and aren't worthy of expression. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait nobody invited Spencer to speak? And they still have to pay his fee? My understanding is that Spencer is the one paying the university a fee. But a fee no higher than anyone else. The university has a venue that can be rented for events. A student group rents it for a Spencer speech. The university can't shut it down for content based reasons, so folks are floating the idea of charging him for the increased security costs that his unpopular and inflammatory rhetoric will inevitably require. Apparently this idea has been adjudicated before. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
esquilax posted:They additionally cannot charge a higher fee to make up for the cost of added security. Limited public forum vs. public forum? I thought Berkeley had the right to charge security fees for Milo's appearance (in a lecture hall, as opposed to on the quad), and the main source of controversy was their opacity in how those fees were calculated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
IIRC, it isn't a student body inviting him. It's a corporation that he owns that rents the space and books him. And here the school is getting a half a million dollar bill from the state so snipers can be put on rooftops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
This is what happens when America stops killing Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
lmao wrong thread p.s. gorsuch sucks and can't communicate for poo poo Star Phlatulence fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:IIRC, it isn't a student body inviting him. It's a corporation that he owns that rents the space and books him. This is correct. If anyone wants to read far too many words on the topic: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3821460&perpage=40&pagenumber=4041#post477553985 Or, I mean, don't. Definitely don't. sloppo posted:p.s. gorsuch sucks and can't communicate for poo poo Welcome to the thread, Justice Kagan! Leaks have come out to NPR that Gorsuch "ticks off some members of the court—and [not] just the liberals." Totenberg backs it up by describing scenes from conference (where the 9 justices are in a room, alone, cast their votes and justify their opinions) where Kagan lights into Gorsuch. Even the Chief Justice is getting pissed at him evidently. This leads to my dream in which a Dem president is elected and Justice John Roberts channels Justice Owen Roberts in making a Switch in Time to Save Nine. Or more ideally, forcing Gorsuch out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:This is correct. If anyone wants to read far too many words on the topic: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3821460&perpage=40&pagenumber=4041#post477553985 There's a decent chance Gorsuch goes the way of Abe Fortas. Gorsuch seems dumb and arrogant enough to think he can get away with stuff he actually can't. Much appreciated your post in the Trump thread. I love legal arguments, although I have no training. Knowing exactly where the limits are and why they're there helps a lot in many situations. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:14
|
|
