|
computer parts posted:There is no definition of gerrymandering outside of "district shapes that I personally do not like". Potter Stewart has an answer for that sort of problem: Justice P-Stew posted:I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that We have a word for this thing—gerrymandering—and reasonable people can generally agree when it's appropriate to name something with that word. The court could just roll with that.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Biden's saying that considering a nominee between late June and early November in a major election year would force Senate members to act on one of their most important duties while distracted by the activities of campaigning, for themselves or their colleagues. His suggestion is that the President wait until after the election, not until after the inauguration. All Biden says there is that the Senate needs to give a nominee their full attention. He also implies that it's a bad move to nominate someone when it could become a political subject in the election. And, he's speaking hypothetically. Contrast that with the partisan gamesmanship of the current Senate majority, who themselves moved to make this SCOTUS seat a political topic in the election, before a nominee was even put forward, in mid-February. They're acting directly counter to Biden's point, only doing so using the power of the Senate instead of the Presidency. e: whoops, June Squizzle fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 21:48
|
|