Any argument about the current constitutionality of abortion, yes, absolutely.
I agree.
Are you also posting as Aescwynn? Or is there some reason that his arguments are also yours? Maybe the liberal group mind is real after all?
Wasn’t Roe v. Wade about the constitutionality of restricting abortion?
Bricker, you’re sounding like a moron. What the fuck does the fact that someone else provided the cite have to do with anything? Is it your position that every single person must repeat every single cite that they rely on for their posts?
I imagine a thread about a terrorist attack, with a link in the OP. A second poster comes into the thread and posts their hopes that the terrorists get caught. Bricker comes in and says, “Cite that there was a terrorist attack?” and mocks the second poster for not providing their own cite.
That is an idiotic way to conduct a discussion, Bricker, and I cannot believe you’re genuinely defending it.
Not remotely a valid analogy.
Here, you post an argument. Another poster post what appears to be a different argument:
It’s not at all clear that he is adopting your adoption of the court’s reasoning or their finding of facts. He’s laying out a specific claimed statement by a single member of the General Assembly and rhetorically asking how it’s possible for that to be constitutional.
Is that your argument also? It didn’t seem to be.
Is it?
What an incredibly ungenerous interpretation. It wasn’t just any member of the general assembly; it’s the member responsible for drawing the maps. It’s not just any statement; it’s the statement that the court said represents a choice that “is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make.”
When you ask for reasons, you’re asking the question that the OP answered. If you want to criticize Aescwynn for basically repeating the OP, okay, sure, whatever. But that’s not what you did.
You fucked up here, in a way that you often fuck up. Why not do better, do the things that you really do well? You still haven’t explained in that thread (I believe) your rationale for thinking that this gerrymandering doesn’t violate Article I or the first or fourteenth amendments; why not do that, instead of trying to score some cheap-ass points and then being all petulant and “stoopid liberals ha ha” when called on it?
I just read through that whole thread to make sure I was right in saying you’d never actually advanced your argument. And I was mostly right. All you did was to say, in effect, “All politicians are bad, so we can’t actually address any one bad thing they do, and also you’re just a dumb ol’ Democrat trying for partisan advantage when you oppose partisan gerrymandering, so nyah nyah!”
Again, it’d be lovely if you’d address the actual constitutional issues ruled on. If you need help finding the ruling, let me know, I was trying to read it last night. I’m no attorney, but at least I can attempt some research before spouting my mouth off.
Yes, true enough. But against that ungenerous interpretation, I have the inescapable experience that quite often, in these discussions, “unconstitutional,” is simply a synonym for “bad public policy.” I maintain that I’m absolutely entitled to ask anyone making a claim on unconstitutionality what the specific textual basis is for the claim.
Sure, I could (again) delve into the details. But how much typing time would that take? Longer, I assure you, than the bare assertion Aescwynn took to make.
Which turns debate on its head: I’m expected to respond to single-paragraph summaries with detailed argument, and not allowed to demand specifics, in the name of generosity? Why can’t my opponents be equally generous, and lay out their claims, which as proponents of a position it is their burden to do?
But OK. Sure. I’ll post back in that thread. Because I am your monkey.
(Non-racially, of course.)
And I can already foresee what will happen: a chorus similar to this:
Oh, for fuck’s sake. You never delved into the details to begin with–or if you did, you never posted about it other than to make a mixture of fluttery-hands helplessness posts combined with accusations of partisanship posts. Aescwynn, on the other hand, was posting about details previously supported in the thread.
No, dude, you’re not expected to. If you just shut up, everyone would be fine with that. Except Starving Artist, who would sit under the old oak tree at night and play a mournful tune on his harmonica.
You’re expected not to post anything. But if you do, you’re expected not to post something so ridiculous.
Dude. Don’t post there because I asked you to. Don’t even post better because I asked you to. Post better because you take some fucking pride in yourself.
If you clarify that you’re looking at specific constitutional issues–which, again, YOU NEVER DID IN THAT THREAD TO BEGIN WITH–I’ll be interested. It’s plainly a thread in part about constitutionality, and responding to posts about constitutionality with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY is a fine and dandy thing to do.
And why is this a problem?
I know you prefer a textualist approach to the constitution but not even your hero Scalia adhered rigidly to that.
In this case we are talking about our elections which goes right to the heart of our republic/democracy. Our form of government was clearly meant to vest supreme power in the people and the government is answerable to them. Indeed you often piously tell us our problems should be properly solved at the ballot box and not in the courts.
But we cannot solve our problems at the ballot box when the government skews the vote via various methods of voter suppression and Gerrymandering. They are clearly handing more power to one side and taking power away from another in the voting booth meaning the will of the people is not being expressed. It is being perverted.
If the supreme court can find a right to privacy and a right to self defense in the constitution then why is it too much for them to find a right to fair and equal elections in there too? It goes right to the heart of what our republic is meant to be where citizens can vote as a means of controlling the government.
And, just for you, the constitution guarantees us a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4). “By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government.” (SOURCE)
Is it really a bridge too far for the supreme court to say elections are sacrosanct and all efforts to make them fair should be taken?
Now comes the outraged cries that we’re talking about fairness and decency and the true spirit of democracy, which have nothing to do with what some judges decide, unless they’re Brave Good and True judges who agreed with you.
I don’t particularly care what you think is “fair,” because I am convinced that your idea of “fair” is simply that you win. So I am very confident that after I bump this post to note that the Supreme Court has disposed of this nonsense, I’ll get a slough of posts accusing me of gloating, sorrowfully observing that I used to be better than this, and damn few saying, “OK, Bricker, looks like you were right: it IS constitutional.”
But have at it.
I’ll be frank - the degree to which this is constitutional interests me only to the degree that you can use that unconstitutionality to make this abortion of a districting fuck off. If we can: great. If we can’t: well, back to the drawing board, let’s try to find some other way of fixing the problem of North Carolina gradually backsliding into a non-democracy. Some things are more important than the constitution; this is one of them. If your constitution is unable or unwilling to protect the basic democracy of your territory, your constitution is shit and should be thrown right the fuck out.
It’s almost as if you want all those supposed protests to happen, just so you can play the martyr.
Also:
Man this post is fucked in ways I can’t even start with. Why yes - if a racial group overwhelmingly votes for one party, then if you stop disenfranchising that group, that party may benefit from it. If you care about the benefit more than you care about the disenfranchising, you’re either a moron or a monster, take your pick. Bricker, you do realize that black people get to vote too, right? Even if you don’t like the fact that they don’t vote the way you vote?
Can your state legislature pass a law that says everyone on your street where you live cannot vote?
If you’re gonna bear a cross, at least lift with your knees.
What’s *your *idea of “fair”?
I have some ideas about process, if you’re interested in my opinion. But why would you be? What I support is the system we all agreed to for passing laws.
If I were King for a Week, then I might implement topologically optimally compact voting districts bound by census block boundaries. That is, mathematically speaking, the best way to create regions that are mathematically fair, in that each contains an equal population and are not stretched out more than any other.
But no Democrat wants that. It wouldn’t be “fair,” about delivering the desired results.
So I’m just happy to stick with the current system.
If you are complaining about how some level of gerrymandering was done with the intent of ensuring that minorities do not get drowned out, and that they actually have a voice and representation, I may also point out to you that doing so actually costs the party that those minorities tend to vote for power.
I don’t know if such redistricting is still necessary to ensure that minorities are not completely shut out of the political process. If it is, then yes, the desired result is not that we shut out minorities from the political process, and concessions will continue to be made. If it is decided that it is not, that minority can still get a decent representation without playing with the district lines, the I would agree with a topologically compact system.
Put it this way, if you knew that using such a system would ensure that minorities did not have representation in congress, would you still advocate for it?
I’m advocating a color-blind, employment-blind, height-blind, weight-blind, results-blind system that treats each and every voter identically. If I were to learn that the result of this were that plumbers couldn’t elect even one plumber to the House, I would not withdraw my support for the system.
See what I mean now?