I don’t think this thread has a title that suggests it’s about who to vote for.
I disagree. A thread can be about the law. This one is, I think.
That story about the guy who took the Rorschach ink blot test, and wondered why the doctor kept showing him dirty pictures.
I certainly feel that frustration and regret, but think I see where they’re coming from. A court order to remedy legislative malpractice that might end up benefiting the malefactors is not going to be a good court order, no matter how much I’d love to see the immediate problem solved.
I’ll be interested to see how the court responds.
What a clusterfuck.
Yup. Meanwhile, two totally fucked-up amendments are currently scheduled to be back on the ballot, although that’s gonna go to the NC Supreme Court; and the governor has regained the ability to appoint people to boards and commissions that perform duties of the executive branch, the legislature having taken this power for themselves shortly after a Democrat won the governor’s house.
All three of these stories are from today’s news.
Clusterfuck barely begins to cover it.
Yeah, I read all that mess this morning myself. Now I just need a convenient wall to bang my head against.
For folks outside the state, there’s a pattern y’all may not see yet:
The legislative branch is overwhelmingly Republican (due, again, to extreme gerrymandering–they’re only earning a bare majority of votes). The executive branch is Democratic (because gerrymandering can’t affect gubernatorial elections here; it was a bare victory in 2016).
They hate each other.
The governor is not doing everything he can to undermine the legislative branch. The legislative branch is furiously writing laws to take power away from the executive branch.
When the two branches fight, the third branch–the judicial branch–is supposed to step in to maintain balance of powers, right? And that’s what they’ve been doing. Time after time after time, the judicial branch has said, “What the fuck, legislative branch? You can’t do that!”
The legislative branch, seeing the balance of powers maintained (i.e., seeing their will to dominate thwarted), is turning attention on the judicial branch. They’re trying to pack the courts with their flunkies, and also they’re threatening impeachment of judges who rule against them.
If they succeed, then the balance of powers will be obliterated.
This is a pretty basic attack on our system of government.
**IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that no election for United States Representatives will take place in the State of North Carolina until a set of district boundaries has been approved by the Legislature and Governor and accepted by this Court. If the Legislature is unable to come up with an unacceptable set of boundaries, the boundaries will be determined by this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED than no election for United States Representatives will take place in the State of North Carolina unless the procedures for that election are approved by this Court, or until the Court rescinds this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that no United States Representatives from the State of North Carolina will be seated in the One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress unless they have been elected by the People of North Carolina in an election, and with district boundaries, approved by this Court.
SO ORDERED.**
I think this Order will encourage the Legislature to act expeditiously.
If the voters approve them, what’s the problem? Isn’t about as close to direct democracy in action as we can imagine in a representative democracy? And it’s a statewide vote, so whatever the issues in your mind are about gerrymandered districts won’t affect the approval process.
Or is this this just another instance of I love democracy, except when the stupid voters don’t do what they’re told by their betters?
If the majority voted to disenfranchise a minority, would you oppose the courts stepping in?
Before I answer this question, did you actually bother to read the link, and you don’t understand the problem?
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Ultimately, who we vote for is our greatest personal effect on govt. Who we advocate for others to vote for has an impact as well. Also, as I said, we are talking about issues that concern us.
A thread can be about the law, and this one is, correct. It is about the law, and how we, as individuals and as a society, feel about that law.
When I asked for a zoning variance for my business (something I didn’t even know I could do until you brought it up many moons ago, thanks), I didn’t go in and quote the regulations that I wanted to change, and they didn’t quote back at me the regulations that I wanted to change. We instead, talked about how we would be altering from those regulations, in order to accommodate my needs.
Which is more productive there?
Right. It is about the law, and the court’s interpretation of the law. However, that’s not all it’s about; nor do I believe, at least today, that the courts provide some sort of supernaturally correct interpretation of the law. Those interpretations that lose in a partisan court may still be superior interpretations.
It is also about what a healthy democracy should do. A thread can have several purposes and related topics.
Folks who find themselves ill-equipped to participate in any aspect of that discussion are, of course, correct to absent themselves from that aspect.
Read the link, don’t see there’s a problem.
You get people to stop demanding my personal view; I’ll stop offering it.
Do you mean you believe that the new proposed amendment description for the ballot is sufficiently descriptive of the amendment that it doesn’t present a problem, or do you mean that you don’t believe amendments need to be described accurately for the ballot, or do you mean you didn’t notice that part of the article, or do you mean something else?
Oh,* Hell*, no! That stuff about nobly protecting the rights of states that have more dirt than people, that was fuckin’ awesome! Classic Bricker! Definitely in the running for your Greatest Hits compilation!
Principle. Your argument is invalid. :dubious:
Bullshit. I can ask, but I’m like 99% sure my principal is against it.
Could I trouble you, as a personal favor, to clarify your meaning as to the phrase, “in this venue”?
Ta.