No. of Recommendations: 9
Checks & Balances? Not anymore...
Reuters: U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIVES REDRAWN PRO-REPUBLICAN TEXAS VOTING MAP INTENDED TO HELP TRUMP'S PARTY KEEP CONTROL OF CONGRESS
Kagan: "Today's order dis-serves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.
Because this Court's precedents and our Constitution demand better, I respectfully dissent."
Supreme Court sides with racism, approves gerrymandered BS!
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-rev...
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't worry.
American culture has put civics at the forefront.
And MOST Americans will look beyond party, and realize why this is destructive for democracy.
And they will work on thier politicians in an organized way, united, until this is overturned.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
At least they can put a condom on a cucumber and respect the pronouns.
Thank God that 50's Beaver Cleaver shit is over.
The only bad part? In the long run Liberals will use the powers of dictatorship more than Righties well.
The only saving grace is - one way or another your bull shit bill of rights will be officially shit on eventually
No. of Recommendations: 10
Texas governor said it was racially motivated gerrymandering, but the majority of the SCOTUS said that Texas didn't know that it wasn't racist.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Texas governor said it was racially motivated gerrymandering, but the majority of the SCOTUS said that Texas didn't know that it wasn't racist.
An important distinction. There are Federal laws against racial gerrymanders, but, the court held, several years ago, there is no Federal law against partisan gerrymanders. As long as the court says the gerrymander is to cheat Democratic voters, regardless of race, it's all good.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
.An important distinction. There are Federal laws against racial gerrymanders, but, the court held, several years ago, there is no Federal law against partisan gerrymanders. As long as the court says the gerrymander is to cheat Democratic voters, regardless of race, it's all good.
Brings up Poppers Intolerance Paradox, summed up:
Gaetano Mosca, a political theorist, is also often quoted: "[i]f tolerance is taken to the point where it tolerates the destruction of those same principles that made tolerance possible in the first place, it becomes intolerable."[4] Wiki
Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[5][6]Wiki
We've all read that rights exist in tension with other rights. We've been watching the initial destruction of our society by those who at least have the "appearance" of not caring about right.. Due Process, checks and balances, Freedom of Speech and limitations, etc., etc., unless it's their rights.
The norms are paper thin, they can walk right through them, and the Supreme Court can be stacked, laws reinterpreted to the point the law no longer exists. Our tolerance does seem to work against us. Take a look, we're forced to gerrymander because the Supremes can interpret away the effectiveness of any law. The last backstop looks like the vote, but I agree that can be manipulated because it depends on... a few laws that the Supremes can interpret away, and norms. And the chaos is relentless.
