The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[seacoaster]

Nice, succinct look at the state of things in the gerrymandering cases, including the Maryland case that is being appealed by the AG there:

http://www.jostonjustice.com/2018/11/co ... tical.html

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear in two partisan gerrymandering cases earlier this year his plan to keep the Supreme Court out of that political thicket by disposing of the cases without settling the issues presented. Now comes another judicial intervention skeptic, the Washington Post columnist Charles Lane, to claim in a post-election column that successful anti-gerrymandering ballot measures in five states prove that federal courts are not needed to cure the acknowledged political problem.

Redistricting reform advocates gained significant ground, to be sure, with ballot measures approved on Nov. 6 in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah and a measure approved by Ohio voters earlier in the year, all aimed at reducing the partisan excesses of congressional and legislative districting. Colorado, Michigan, and Utah now join the 20 or so states with independent commissions empowered to draw or propose legislative or congressional districts or both."

....

"The Supreme Court's 2017 term had been viewed as the year when the justices would finally settle on a workable standard, but the two cases that separately challenged the Republican gerrymander in Wisconsin and a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland ended only with whimpers. Roberts led the Court in sending the Wisconsin case back for plaintiffs to try to show legal standing to challenge individual districts instead of the statewide map.

Roberts was surely the prime mover behind the unsigned decision in the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, to dismiss the challenge as too close to the next election. On remand, the three-judge court in that case just ordered the state to redraw the districts, but the state has filed a notice of appeal.

Redistricting reformers do not share Lane's sanguine view of the results of the Nov. 6 balloting in congressional races. Overall, Lane noted, Democrats won 52.5 percent of the vote in congressional races and — "wait for it" — 53.2 percent of the seats with some races still undecided. Lane conceded, however, that partisan gerrymanders performed just as intended in two states: Maryland, with one Republican in the eight-member House delegation, and North Carolina, with a reaffirmed 10-3 edge for Republicans in a closely divided state electorate.

Partisan gerrymanders amount to "artificial walls to keep back the natural political tides," according to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The walls "held" in some states, including North Carolina, he explains in an interview. Democrats "managed to get over the wall" in others thanks to "extraordinary turnout," he acknowledges, but those successes "don't make it right that the obstacles were put there to begin with."

In the meantime, the new redistricting commissions may give voters in those states some protection against political mischief. Voters in the majority of states, however, may still look to federal or possibly state courts — notwithstanding Lane's reassurance to the contrary — to offer some hope to cure the gerrymandering problem."

[cradleandshoot]

No one is "off their rocker." You like pretending people are hysterical.

You just proffered a belittling slur as a nickname, asserted it is widely used, and so far it's you and Limbaugh.

What is it about RBG's life's body of work that makes it so easy for you to belittle her? I am asking about substance here. Or is it just because she seemed to dress down some lawyers in an audio (the Court doesn't have video) session you say you heard? She's a little meany? Is that it? Try to contribute.

I just stated that you went into hysterics when I called RBG "buzzi" Explain to me how "buzzi" is a slur? I explained to you several times what about what the nickname "buzzi" means. It is in reference to her resemblance to a character that Ruth Buzzi played on Laugh In. I should be proud I think I have used this term years before Limbaugh did. Maybe he owes me some bling here. I am way tired of this stupid game you are playing coaster. Climb off of your hypersensitive pedestal and rejoin the world. RBG is a legend amongst the FLP wing of the Democrat party... I get that. That does not make her a world class legal mind. Her interpretation of the US Constitution is based on it being a bill of negative rights. That is right out of the same school that BHO believes in. Her interpretation of the constitution is that she does not like the fact that it restricts the power of government on what they can do to the people. The FLP argument is they think the government should do more for the people. I get that. In my world if you don't like what the constitution says you amend it... that is the will of the people.

The hard core FRC folks believe the US Constitution was given to us by our founding fathers to protect us from a government gone out of control with power. That is the Antonin Scalia wing of the court. Have you ever listened to some of the SCOTUS cases heard on Cspan… I have. If you have any reading comprehension you would have caught that in my previous post. Scalia and Ruth could both be brutal on lawyers pleading their case in front of them.


Just some food for thought for you coaster... I have happily flagged our conversation here. Why you ask? Over the course of a few years here I have read a number of my more progressive friends use one slur after another after another against a number of people here they disagree with, mostly conservative/republican types. A few questions for you. George W Bush is a good and decent man... is calling him shrub a slur against him? How many slurs have been used against Sarah Palin?? I will be glad to respect your opinion here, I won't use the term for RBG that I used before. My stipulation, and I promise you I will point it out everytime that I read it here... is that you call out any FLP posters here that use slurs against anyone on this forum. I think that is a pretty fair compromise that we both can live with. Bandito is the one exception because he makes no sense anyways. I will also give you Brooks as an exception for all the obvious reasons. I will also call out anyone using a slur against anyone. My goal is to make myself a better contributor here. I readily admit I have a problem with my internal filter that makes this very difficult at times.

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, I think you're way too far gonzo if you really think comparing RBG's appearance to that of a character on Laugh-in isn't an attempted slur. If you don't get why that's such a dumb, misogynistic slur and entirely inappropriate, then we really can't help you understand.

Of course you turn around and try to say that it's just fine to slur her because GOP folks get insulted as well. No, those insults are pretty darn stupid as well. I dunno about the W slur "shrub" and what that's supposed to mean, and I don't recall the "slur" about Palin comparable to "Buzzi" but I'd just suggest that an SNL caricature is a far cry from insulting an old lady's looks by someone with no comedic talent, nor understood to be comedy. It's just an attempt to demean.

But I'm with you that stupid slurs in general ought to be called out. That's a fine policy.
Strong opinions about public figures being corrupt, racist, misogynist...or whatever...if justified with logic and fact, no problem. People are free to disagree.


As to your opinions about RBG's "legal mind" ... hilarious.
But it's also a bit scary that people who know so little actually think they know a lot...because they listen to those legal giants... Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

[foreverlax]

RBG is a legend amongst the FLP wing of the Democrat party... I get that. That does not make her a world class legal mind.

Correct...

Her interpretation of the US Constitution is based on it being a bill of negative rights.

So we are clear here, you are comparing RBG with Ruth Buzzi's character, the homeless park-bench spinster Gladys Ormphby.

More importantly, your view of her view, in no way demonstrates that she doesn't have a "world class legal mind".

There is more to being a justice than what you see on CPSAN. They have the skill and ability to consume enormous amount of complex materials, think in a manner that is completely foreign to most folks, and write in a form that leaves little doubt to author's meaning.

"buzzi" is an obvious play on Ruth Buzzi. And yea it would be funny on SNL.

Is a slur? Not to me...when Rush uses it, you can be certain it's coming from a condescending place.

Calling "W" by "Shrub"...not offense, not a slur.

Palin was called the Denali Ditz by me and others, plenty of times....she was and is a ditz

[dislaxxic]

I don't recall the "slur" about Palin comparable to "Buzzi"

Was this the one you were thinking of, MD?



..

[MDlaxfan76]

I don't recall the "slur" about Palin comparable to "Buzzi"

Was this the one you were thinking of, MD?



..

color1

I don't recall that.
Unless that's a phony picture that someone stuck her face on, no slur.
If it's her, accurately, then, painfully, that's on her.
The guy behind her with the cig and beer, classic.

SNL's caricature, though, was hilarious and, unfortunately for Palin, stuck.
Now, primarily that was because the caricature captured so much truth.
Much like "strategery" struck with W.
The Clinton caricatures were classics too.
And my gosh, they nailed Hillary.
And, boy, a lot of material these days...something of a renaissance for SNL.

Comedy is just fine, demeaning slurs are not.

[cradleandshoot]

RBG is a legend amongst the FLP wing of the Democrat party... I get that. That does not make her a world class legal mind.

Correct...

Her interpretation of the US Constitution is based on it being a bill of negative rights.

So we are clear here, you are comparing RBG with Ruth Buzzi's character, the homeless park-bench spinster Gladys Ormphby.

More importantly, your view of her view, in no way demonstrates that she doesn't have a "world class legal mind".

There is more to being a justice than what you see on CPSAN. They have the skill and ability to consume enormous amount of complex materials, think in a manner that is completely foreign to most folks, and write in a form that leaves little doubt to author's meaning.

"buzzi" is an obvious play on Ruth Buzzi. And yea it would be funny on SNL.

Is a slur? Not to me...when Rush uses it, you can be certain it's coming from a condescending place.

Calling "W" by "Shrub"...not offense, not a slur.

Palin was called the Denali Ditz by me and others, plenty of times....she was and is a ditz

You may be the closet here to grasping what I have been saying. I don't know how many of you have ever spent hours listening to Cspan recordings of SCOTUS cases being heard in front of the justices. I have spent more hours doing so than I care to admit. It does not make me an expert as to any of the justices. If you listen enough, you get a feel for the temperance of the judges. My observations were that Justice Scalia had very little patience for lawyers beating around the bush. Justice Ginsburg was also very impatient with some lawyers at times. What I did observe is that in their day, Ginsburg and Scalia both were always asking concise questions and expecting concise answers. If you tried to baffle them with legal BS they would call you on it. RBG is a fine lawyer, maybe it is the fact I am not on board with how she interprets the constitution in general. If I find my self disagreeing with where she comes from I can only backtrack to the fact that she was highly respected by Justice Scalia and they were the closest of friends. So I will swallow my pride and admit that RBG is a brilliant Supreme Court justice. She may not be a justice that I agree with very much but that crtainly should not diminish her legal stature. I never meant to insult her by the reference I made. To me it was just a humorous nickname, to others here it was a nasty slur. I do find it hard to accept that if you call Sarah Palin a "ditz" that it is not a slur. if you disagree with me try using it on your wife and see what she thinks about it.

[cradleandshoot]

cradle, I think you're way too far gonzo if you really think comparing RBG's appearance to that of a character on Laugh-in isn't an attempted slur. If you don't get why that's such a dumb, misogynistic slur and entirely inappropriate, then we really can't help you understand.

Of course you turn around and try to say that it's just fine to slur her because GOP folks get insulted as well. No, those insults are pretty darn stupid as well. I dunno about the W slur "shrub" and what that's supposed to mean, and I don't recall the "slur" about Palin comparable to "Buzzi" but I'd just suggest that an SNL caricature is a far cry from insulting an old lady's looks by someone with no comedic talent, nor understood to be comedy. It's just an attempt to demean.

But I'm with you that stupid slurs in general ought to be called out. That's a fine policy.
Strong opinions about public figures being corrupt, racist, misogynist...or whatever...if justified with logic and fact, no problem. People are free to disagree.


As to your opinions about RBG's "legal mind" ... hilarious.
But it's also a bit scary that people who know so little actually think they know a lot...because they listen to those legal giants... Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

To correct you my friend... I don't listen to Rush or Hannity at all. I will admit that sometimes late at night I will listen to snipets of Michael Savage on my radio. He is a piece of work and almost nobody ever talks about him here on this forum. Maybe I relate better to people who are angry and pissed off at both parties. My cynicism in this world predates all these talk show folks by many years. My sister and I have been arguing this stuff since the mid 70's I am no newcomer to this game. Most of what I hear or read today are things I learned from my parents decades ago.

[seacoaster]

THe Court will hear the Census questionnaire evidence matter:

http://amylhowe.com/2018/11/16/justices ... n-dispute/

:The events giving rise to the dispute now before the Supreme Court arose in March of this year, when Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that the 2020 census would include a question about citizenship, intended to help the Department of Justice enforce federal voting-rights laws. A group of states (led by New York), cities and counties challenged that decision; they argued that including such a question would skew the results of the census, because it would deter households with undocumented immigrants from responding.

As part of their case, the challengers wanted to gather evidence from outside the official records considered by Ross in making his decision – including by questioning both Ross and John Gore, the acting head of the Department of Justice’s civil rights division, about why the question was added. In October, the government asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the evidentiary dispute, arguing that there was no need to probe into the two officials’ mental states when the government had provided thousands of pages of documents explaining Ross’ decision.

The Supreme Court gave the government a partial victory on October 22, blocking the challengers from questioning Ross but allowing Gore’s deposition and other fact-finding to go forward. One week later, the justices refused to put the trial in the case, which was scheduled to begin on November 5, on hold while they ruled on the government’s petition for mandamus. That petition asked the justices to issue an order directing the trial court to exclude fact-finding beyond the official records, including Gore’s deposition, and make its decision based only on the official records.

The government’s petition suggested that, in the alternative, the justices could grant review of the appeals court’s decision denying relief, and that is what the Supreme Court did today. The justices ordered an expedited briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued on February 19, 2019."

Part of the war against the Blue Cities?

[MDlaxfan76]

cradle, I think you're way too far gonzo if you really think comparing RBG's appearance to that of a character on Laugh-in isn't an attempted slur. If you don't get why that's such a dumb, misogynistic slur and entirely inappropriate, then we really can't help you understand.

Of course you turn around and try to say that it's just fine to slur her because GOP folks get insulted as well. No, those insults are pretty darn stupid as well. I dunno about the W slur "shrub" and what that's supposed to mean, and I don't recall the "slur" about Palin comparable to "Buzzi" but I'd just suggest that an SNL caricature is a far cry from insulting an old lady's looks by someone with no comedic talent, nor understood to be comedy. It's just an attempt to demean.

But I'm with you that stupid slurs in general ought to be called out. That's a fine policy.
Strong opinions about public figures being corrupt, racist, misogynist...or whatever...if justified with logic and fact, no problem. People are free to disagree.


As to your opinions about RBG's "legal mind" ... hilarious.
But it's also a bit scary that people who know so little actually think they know a lot...because they listen to those legal giants... Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.

To correct you my friend... I don't listen to Rush or Hannity at all. I will admit that sometimes late at night I will listen to snipets of Michael Savage on my radio. He is a piece of work and almost nobody ever talks about him here on this forum. Maybe I relate better to people who are angry and ticked off at both parties. My cynicism in this world predates all these talk show folks by many years. My sister and I have been arguing this stuff since the mid 70's I am no newcomer to this game. Most of what I hear or read today are things I learned from my parents decades ago.

I appreciate your pullback in the post immediately above this one.
Note that I didn't say you individually listen to any particular right wing blowhard. It was stated more generally, as the only references I could find to that slur about her looks were Limbaugh a number of times, and Woolery. I'm not surprised that it was picked up by others. But you heard it somewhere, and if pre-internet, pretty safe bet it was right wing talk radio.

From another thread, sounds like for at least part of your career you were a long haul driver? Would make sense that the radio would be on a lot...including CSPAN, I assume? Perhaps you are indeed disposed to be attracted to those who are "angry and ticked off at both political parties"; it's indeed quite engaging. It's just that talk radio has long been dominated by the "angry" right wing. Radio is a great medium for such. I turn on my local such station intermittently, depending on what's on NPR at the time (which I generally find much more interesting). The "anger" quotient I can only stand for so long, but it's good, I think, to at least know what folks are saying.

[runrussellrun]

RBG is a legend amongst the FLP wing of the Democrat party... I get that. That does not make her a world class legal mind.

Correct...

Her interpretation of the US Constitution is based on it being a bill of negative rights.

So we are clear here, you are comparing RBG with Ruth Buzzi's character, the homeless park-bench spinster Gladys Ormphby.

More importantly, your view of her view, in no way demonstrates that she doesn't have a "world class legal mind".

There is more to being a justice than what you see on CPSAN. They have the skill and ability to consume enormous amount of complex materials, think in a manner that is completely foreign to most folks, and write in a form that leaves little doubt to author's meaning.

"buzzi" is an obvious play on Ruth Buzzi. And yea it would be funny on SNL.

Is a slur? Not to me...when Rush uses it, you can be certain it's coming from a condescending place.

Calling "W" by "Shrub"...not offense, not a slur.

Palin was called the Denali Ditz by me and others, plenty of times....she was and is a ditz

This is hillaryous....and untrue. First off, the Supremes plebes do all the reading and writing, not the Justices. Remember Scalia's always on vacation and bold claim that he doesn't have TIME to read the ACA, even on the long flight to Australia. the SC clerks are the worker bees. You really think an 85 year old has the energy to read and write with vigor and passion for the law?

[runrussellrun]

THe Court will hear the Census questionnaire evidence matter:

http://amylhowe.com/2018/11/16/justices ... n-dispute/

:The events giving rise to the dispute now before the Supreme Court arose in March of this year, when Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that the 2020 census would include a question about citizenship, intended to help the Department of Justice enforce federal voting-rights laws. A group of states (led by New York), cities and counties challenged that decision; they argued that including such a question would skew the results of the census, because it would deter households with undocumented immigrants from responding.

As part of their case, the challengers wanted to gather evidence from outside the official records considered by Ross in making his decision – including by questioning both Ross and John Gore, the acting head of the Department of Justice’s civil rights division, about why the question was added. In October, the government asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the evidentiary dispute, arguing that there was no need to probe into the two officials’ mental states when the government had provided thousands of pages of documents explaining Ross’ decision.

The Supreme Court gave the government a partial victory on October 22, blocking the challengers from questioning Ross but allowing Gore’s deposition and other fact-finding to go forward. One week later, the justices refused to put the trial in the case, which was scheduled to begin on November 5, on hold while they ruled on the government’s petition for mandamus. That petition asked the justices to issue an order directing the trial court to exclude fact-finding beyond the official records, including Gore’s deposition, and make its decision based only on the official records.

The government’s petition suggested that, in the alternative, the justices could grant review of the appeals court’s decision denying relief, and that is what the Supreme Court did today. The justices ordered an expedited briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued on February 19, 2019."

Part of the war against the Blue Cities?

All this means is that Massachusettes will lose another member of Congress........already dropping from 16 to 9. Women were counted for years, but couldn't vote. I guess they could still petition their Congress though, as constituents.

What is the purpose of the census again?

exactly

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 4243e2e755 I watched this and had to LMFAO. I need input from Seacoaster and MD lax. I have no idea if this is a slur against RBG or not. I am not sure if laughing at this makes me some sort of a bad person. Seacoaster… MD... please enlighten me as to how I should react to this... Is it comedy or is RBG being made fun of?

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 4243e2e755 I watched this and had to LMFAO. I need input from Seacoaster and MD lax. I have no idea if this is a slur against RBG or not. I am not sure if laughing at this makes me some sort of a bad person. Seacoaster… MD... please enlighten me as to how I should react to this... Is it comedy or is RBG being made fun of?

You really don't know?
Indeed funny.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 4243e2e755 I watched this and had to LMFAO. I need input from Seacoaster and MD lax. I have no idea if this is a slur against RBG or not. I am not sure if laughing at this makes me some sort of a bad person. Seacoaster… MD... please enlighten me as to how I should react to this... Is it comedy or is RBG being made fun of?

You really don't know?
Indeed funny.

Oh I know. In the context of the discussions we have had about RBG this week I thought it was priceless.

[seacoaster]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 4243e2e755 I watched this and had to LMFAO. I need input from Seacoaster and MD lax. I have no idea if this is a slur against RBG or not. I am not sure if laughing at this makes me some sort of a bad person. Seacoaster… MD... please enlighten me as to how I should react to this... Is it comedy or is RBG being made fun of?

You really don't know?
Indeed funny.

Enlighten you? Cue Sisyphus anyone?

[cradleandshoot]

Come on Seacoaster… can't we all just get along? I am so very tired of rolling that boulder up the hill.

[foreverlax]

RBG is a legend amongst the FLP wing of the Democrat party... I get that. That does not make her a world class legal mind.

Correct...

Her interpretation of the US Constitution is based on it being a bill of negative rights.

So we are clear here, you are comparing RBG with Ruth Buzzi's character, the homeless park-bench spinster Gladys Ormphby.

More importantly, your view of her view, in no way demonstrates that she doesn't have a "world class legal mind".

There is more to being a justice than what you see on CPSAN. They have the skill and ability to consume enormous amount of complex materials, think in a manner that is completely foreign to most folks, and write in a form that leaves little doubt to author's meaning.

"buzzi" is an obvious play on Ruth Buzzi. And yea it would be funny on SNL.

Is a slur? Not to me...when Rush uses it, you can be certain it's coming from a condescending place.

Calling "W" by "Shrub"...not offense, not a slur.

Palin was called the Denali Ditz by me and others, plenty of times....she was and is a ditz

This is hillaryous....and untrue. First off, the Supremes plebes do all the reading and writing, not the Justices. Remember Scalia's always on vacation and bold claim that he doesn't have TIME to read the ACA, even on the long flight to Australia. the SC clerks are the worker bees. You really think an 85 year old has the energy to read and write with vigor and passion for the law?

Doesn't seem to matter....you and the other "answer man" seem to have it all nailed down.

[Jim Malone]

You really think an 85 year old has the energy to read and write with vigor and passion for the law?

My 91 year old father in law, retired from the NY Appelate due to age, still writes arbitration decisions with a firm vigor and passion for the law.

And, can shoot his age or better after the full 18 on a good day.

That is an innate trait and does not go away at any age if it was there to begin with based upon my experiences.

[runrussellrun]

Great for him. You honestly think that is the norm though?

And, you all are glossing over the fact that these Supremes are mostly GONE, on vacation.......(who pays for it book1 ) instead of reading the clerks legal summations

Three months of vacation time for the Supremes?
.
I can post "whataboutism" links too book1


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme ... d=10449434