Your anticipatory whining about the bad treatment you imagine you’ll receive, however, is predicated on a false assumption: namely, that you won’t make a bullshit claim.
You’re planning to look at a closely-divided Supreme Court ruling that comes out in favor of your position and interpret it as “disposing of nonsense,” when what it’ll actually show is that the constitutional issues are so complex that literally the highest judges in the land disagree on how they should properly be applied. A court whose makeup is possible only because Obama’s pick was blocked will have an extra Republican member, and will decide in favor of gerrymandering in favor of the party that got them appointed, and you’ll be like, “SEE I TOLD YOU I WAS RIGHT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.”
At which point you’ll be called a massive choad, and you’ll be like “OOH CONSERVATIVES CAN’T CATCH A FAIR BREAK AROUND HERE.”
Wrong again. Here is what Democratic California came up with. Note that it is not anything like the Democratic majority legislature redrawing districts to suit themselves.
From what I can see, sounds like this dude fell into the sunken place and stayed there. Good for him. I don’t get the unhealthy preoccupation with this poster. He isn’t an uber-mensch; nah, he is ostensible lawyer/attorney who, most likely, earned his juris doctorate from a majority white school with a majority white faculty; at this institution, he learned about the US constitution written by white people, laws written by white people, and laws adjudicated by white people. He probably learned about all sorts of laws - corporate, administrative, civil, criminal, etc - all written, voted on, and passed into law by white people. At the conclusion of his studies, he took a state board exam administered and written by primarily white people. He ostensibly passed and was recognized by the state as an expert in law: the rulebook of white supremacy. Again, good for him. I’m sure he worked hard and he should be proud of his achievements. I’d be more impressed, however, if he emerged from the sunken place and offered his preternatural skills - pro bono - to help his people being interned in concentration camps.
This is crazypants identity politics, Huey. People of color get to practice agency just like anybody else, and if someone chooses to practice their agency in a way that’s harmful to others, the fact that they’re not white doesn’t somehow let them off the hook.
Your description of his career is infantilizing. Those things he chooses to support? Of his own free will.
Do they? Does it even matter if they do? Even if they get to vote, the poor bastards get gerrymandered to hell and back, and it seems every week, Drumpf, Kobach or some other asshole dreams up yet another scheme - voter ID, fake cries of voter fraud, etc.
There’s nothing wrong with identity politics. People have an issue with identity politics because, among other things, "identity politics" disrupts individualism - a pillar of white liberalism and white supremacy. Identity politics brought us 43 white male Presidents . . . in a row and it was never an issue in mainstream discourse until Obama was elected by people of color. Do you remember in 2002 where GWB talked about the scourge of identity politics poisoning our political climate? Or perhaps you remember Reagan in 1985 talking about how we shouldn’t engage in identity politics? Nope, me neither. You’re absolutely correct that Bricker has the freedom to support whatever causes he wants to. He should. But I’m free to infer that he resides in the same sunken place whereJoe Gomez of FAIR, Clarence Thomas, Sheriff Clark, Herman Cain, and Alan Keyes roam. And, there is nothing wrong with being in the sunken place; in fact, from what I can infer from the movie Get Out, the pay and benefits are excellent.
The only thing I’m predicting is what the state of the law is in the future. That’s gong to be an objective fact. You can complain about how we got there, and how unfair it was, and if only Garland, and if only Clinton, and RACISM! and whatever else you want to say. But I am simply pointing out what will be.
Except I don’t agree that there is any “disenfranchsing” going on, no matter how many times you assert this as fact.
Black people get to vote just like everyone else gets to vote. I’m very much in favor of that. I’m not personally in favor of systems that say that “Let’s draw districts to help minority voters have more impact,” and I’m not personally in favor of systems that say that “Let’s draw districts to help minority voters have less impact.”
But you are. You’re very much in favor of drawing dstricts to help minority voters have more impact. That, in my opinion, is not fair.
But I don’t insist that my version of “fair,” gets used.
Here comes Bricker, prattling pretentiously about “settled law, True judges, and disposing of nonsense” without ever mentioning that Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) was decided by a [SIZE=“5”]5-4 vote exactly on the usual partisan lines.[/SIZE] I laugh at this bombast in the other thread.
“But … but … but” (I hear the Republiopaths say) “Souter was appointed by GHWB and he voted agaisnt the R’s. How can you say all 9 judges voted on partisan lines? Wasn’t it merely 8 of them?”
Wrong. The split in this country is no longer D vs R. Since 1993 it has been the Rational & Good versus the Stupid & Evil. I’m proud to regard GHWB, along with Romney, McCain, George Will and others who’ve denounced the modern GOP as one of us.
Bricker? Once upon a time you had the reputation of being a principled right-winger, like George Will. What happened to turn you into a bitter liar with a shriveling brain?
Sure you are, until one of them might be in a position to enact a tax cut, initiate military action, name a SCOTUS nominee, or perhaps advocate plastic straws for all.
Do you think Dems are looking for House districts that help minority voters have more impact than an equal number of white voters? I don’t. At best they’re looking to get that crooked system unskewed from where it is today.
Rural white voters have more influence than urban minority voters in electing the President and members of the Senate, thanks to the basic structure of our electoral system and the Senate itself. Thanks to gerrymandering, in many states, rural white voters have more influence in electing members of the House as well.
If you have anything resembling an objective vision of what’s fair, outside of what’s legal, you’d concede that re-gerrymandering the House in favor of urban minorities is a step towards making the whole system fair.
Agreed. My problem isn’t with identity politics. It’s with, again, crazypants identity politics.
I don’t know how you’re interpreting the Sunken Place. Looked to me like a place where a person’s agency was subsumed, and they were unable to make decisions about the world, because someone else (or if you’d like an alien institution) was making the decisions for them.
If that’s not what you mean, you metaphor differently from me. If that is what you mean, it’s a ridiculous thing to apply to a straight rich gender-conforming Christian man who benefits from every power axis in our society except for race.
Oh, cool, so now I have a prediction. If you confine yourself to a statement of fact–something like, “Now that Democrats have had their supreme court appointee blocked, the court is populated primarily with conservatives, and accordingly enough justices voted the way I like that my view prevailed,” you won’t find nearly the pushback you usually find when you bring your Martin Shkreli smirk into a thread to say, “Nyah, nyah, I was right.”
FWIW, if I tried to participate at the sort of single-voice leftist board you guys pretend that SDMB is, I’d probably be banned as too centrist, or worse.
Mandatory straws are a good example of the liberal over-reach I would join you in lambasting. However, note that the left is at least motivated by humane values on the straw issue (they know it’ll cost them two pink-neck votes for every handicapped vote it gains them). This is in contrast to the Republiopaths — if they were pushing for mandatory straws you could bet one of their donors had a big stock-market position of relevance.
I was a strong supporter of Desert Storm (I greatly admire Biden, but poor Joe got the correct position on the two Bush-Iraq wars backwards). I called myself “libertarian” until that term was co-opted to mean “angry dope smoker who doesn’t like to pay taxes.” Lumping me with “the leftists” is just another example of the inability of today’s American right-wingers to apply their brains.
But more importantly, you are hijacking Bricker’s thread. Start your own thread if you want to be Pitted. Here, copy-paste the following to get started:
Please Pit me (Starving Artist) too
I’ve been posting stupid political opinions at SDMB as long as I can remember. I oohed and aahed over and over about Trump’s fake Wharton degree over a decade ago (of course I was too ignorant to know it was fake). I try to agree with Bricker whenever I can.
So why don’t you guys ever Pit me?? :mad: Whine! Stupid guys need to be Pitted too.
There. That should get you started. You’ll want to include some Stupid Artist quotes in your OP, but that shouldn’t be hard. Just use the “Find all” click and copy at random — most of your posts are stupid.
