Supreme Court Upholds Texas Election Map That Favors Republicans
Republicans currently have a tiny majority over Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered late on Dec. 4 that a redrawn election map expected to increase Republican representation in Texas’s U.S. House delegation remain in place.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...fnvzQ8rvrH%2FnNQg%3D

Now that this is settled, I'm being moved back to TX-15. The democrats did something shrewd by recruiting a somewhat faded but popular and well-known Tejano musician to run against Monica de la Cruz (R).

Bobby Pulido has a "common sense" platform that is going to appeal to moderates; stuff like border security/drug interdiction, but there's stuff like keeping families together, so you know where he'd likely come down on some votes. Also, a "I'm not red or blue, I'm Texan" populism.

de la Cruz is going to need a lot of money and party support. But I'll give the democrats credit for finding someone that is actually fairly moderate and electable, but trading on celebrity for an edge.

Well it maybe offset if Gabby Newscum's law the voters passed stands muster.

If so, then every Red state should simply eliminate as many D districts as possible.

Many blue states have done this, Mass for example has no R districts fight fire with fire.

I do like good news. The lib judges aren’t only hypocrites they think we are idiots. Kagan’s dissent literally said “we aren’t on the eve of an election”. It’s 5 months away. How far exactly from an election does she consider imminent?

I will admit I have never understood gerrymandering. The very act of drawing a district is gerrymandering unless you literally do it in the blind, with absolutely zero political influence or thought. In fact since certain minorities votes democrat to the tune of 90+% I would argue that you can’t remove race from the issue. So all districting of any kind meets the criteria for racial or political gain.

My point? Isn’t every single district in America been gerrymandered? I think the obvious answer is yes. The USSC clearly stated it’s ok to do it for political gain just not racial. Which is pretty ambiguous.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I do like good news. The lib judges aren’t only hypocrites they think we are idiots. Kagan’s dissent literally said “we aren’t on the eve of an election”. It’s 5 months away. How far exactly from an election does she consider imminent?

I will admit I have never understood gerrymandering. The very act of drawing a district is gerrymandering unless you literally do it in the blind, with absolutely zero political influence or thought. In fact since certain minorities votes democrat to the tune of 90+% I would argue that you can’t remove race from the issue. So all districting of any kind meets the criteria for racial or political gain.

My point? Isn’t every single district in America been gerrymandered? I think the obvious answer is yes. The USSC clearly stated it’s ok to do it for political gain just not racial. Which is pretty ambiguous.

Gerrymandering is different in that the district is drawn specifically to give one canidate or party an advantage instead of being drawn to include a specific community.
A classic example of this is Corrine Brown's (old) district. It ran from the north side of Jacksonville and meandered almost all the way down to Orlando, in some areas the district was only a block or 2 wide. We passed a new constitutional amendment with specific guidelines that wiped her district out.
To be fair, there were some sketchy districts that served the R's as well.

Florida State Requirements (Florida Constitution's "Fair Districts Amendments")

-No Partisan or Incumbent Favoritism: Districts must not be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.
-Contiguity: All parts of a district must be connected to each other.
-Compactness: Districts must be compact.
-Follow Boundaries: Where feasible, district lines must utilize existing political and geographical boundaries, such as county or city lines.

There is still wiggle room but at least now they have to work harder at it.

The Supreme Court is allowing them to cheat. Whatever one's political views, cheating is wrong.

Vince

quote:

Originally posted by vmtz:
The Supreme Court is allowing them to cheat. Whatever one's political views, cheating is wrong.

Vince

Cheating is flaunting rules. Using precedent is strategic and legal. The Supreme Court upheld the redistricting. In fact, Kagan's dissent as much said that it's legal, but since minorities tend to vote Democrat, it's race-based. Apparently, that was unpersuasive to the majority Justices.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Well it maybe offset if Gabby Newscum's law the voters passed stands muster.

If so, then every Red state should simply eliminate as many D districts as possible.

Many blue states have done this, Mass for example has no R districts fight fire with fire.

The A holes in VA are already planning this when they take power

Eat it Jasmine Crockett

quote:

Originally posted by vmtz:
The Supreme Court is allowing them to cheat. Whatever one's political views, cheating is wrong.

Vince

How the hell are we supposed to win against an opponent that generated 8,000,000+ fake votes in 2020 without playing on their level? I am in favor of cheating if it means my country will not be destroyed by another four years of Democrat rule. We are in a rare position where we have total power (including the Supreme Court) and I expect Trump to keep it that way for the survival of this nation.

Like I said, anytime you draw out districts it is effectively partisan ie gerrymandering unless you literally do it with absolutely zero bias. I’m not sure the last time that happened but I’m leaning towards never.

So to my mind you only have a little gerrymandering or a lot of gerrymandering. Political parties don’t draw the lines to be fair.

Also, if USSC says it’s legal it by definition isn’t cheating.

I’m with Pete on this. They can use legal gymnastics and call it anything else, but it’s still gerrymandering. The only way it’s not is that they cut the districts into a waffle pattern.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by vmtz:
The Supreme Court is allowing them to cheat. Whatever one's political views, cheating is wrong.

Vince

Cheating is flaunting rules. Using precedent is strategic and legal. The Supreme Court upheld the redistricting. In fact, Kagan's dissent as much said that it's legal, but since minorities tend to vote Democrat, it's race-based. Apparently, that was unpersuasive to the majority Justices.

I read the majority's opinion, all three pages. In the middle, they talk about their ruling being temporary pending appeal to the full court. Kagan in her dissent actually does legal analysis and does a pretty good job of explaining why what Texas did was wrong.

Vince

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:

quote:

Originally posted by vmtz:
The Supreme Court is allowing them to cheat. Whatever one's political views, cheating is wrong.

Vince

How the hell are we supposed to win against an opponent that generated 8,000,000+ fake votes in 2020 without playing on their level? I am in favor of cheating if it means my country will not be destroyed by another four years of Democrat rule. We are in a rare position where we have total power (including the Supreme Court) and I expect Trump to keep it that way for the survival of this nation.

You know FOX payed almost a billion dollars in damages for saying 2020 was rigged? And before trail? I would think that that would raise a red flag in your beliefs? Big corps don't give out that kind of money to support a lie. And if it wasn't a lie why not take it to trial and show the world the "truth?" But they didn't, did they, they paid?

I don't know about you, but my momma taught me that lying and cheating was wrong.

Oh, and we are a democracy/republic and the will of the majority should control.

Vince

Your basic premise is that they settled out of court so clearly they were guilty. That is a nonsensical premise and wrong every bit as often as right. Besides which I will go to my grave believing the election was rigged in 2020. I think in a reasonable courtroom you could absolutely have shown that in certain swing votes there were irregularities and abuses of state election laws that swung the vote. Also dead voters, voters voting in multiple districts and times, and ineligible voters. We have one of the most security porous voting systems in the modern world. It’s harder to buy a beer than to vote illegally.

Every district in America, every single district has been manipulated in one way or another to give an advantage to one side or the other. If you were being honest, Kagan’s dissent is all about race. That’s it.

The funny thing about that argument is that if you applied the same criteria to white voting it would cause a firestorm. If white voters voted as a 90%+ bloc one way or the other it would be widely viewed as racist. Black America gets a free pass on that. Said another way, if a section of society votes overwhelmingly the same way every single election then the words racial and partisan lose their differentiation. It’s ok to draw lines being partisan but it’s not ok to draw lines racially. Except it is one and the same in these districts.

If changing the map benefits Republicans, then not changing the map must benefit Democrats. What was the question the Supreme Court actually ruled on?

The 2020 election was rigged by numerous changes to voting rules and procedures which, by the plain reading of the Constitution and various laws, were illegal. Yes, judges upheld those changes, so they were "legal". Courts ignored all kinds of shenanigans, refusing to hear cases of obvious election fraud.

Mathematically, it is just not believable what happened in many states.

2020 was a stolen election, no doubt in my mind, whether sanctioned by activist judges or not.

But I believe the end result is that Trump's 2nd term will be far more productive now than had he been reelected in 2020. The enemy has revealed itself, and the gloves are off.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
The 2020 election was rigged by numerous changes to voting rules and procedures which, by the plain reading of the Constitution and various laws, were illegal.

Yes, governors and especially Sec of State assholes in charge of elections changed the laws to their liking days before Election Day. And of course the state legislatures, just like Congress, are the only ones who can actually create and change laws.

There is always some other reason, some deep, deep hidden agenda. Or perhaps they settled because they couldn't support their case? I don't know many companies that pay that kind of money just cuz.... And didn't Newmax or some such entity also settle?

Vince

Your premise is simplistic. While I agree that entities that are innocent of all wrongdoing should never settle, I also am intelligent enough to recognize the litigious society we actually live in.

Just in recent times you could find dozens of court rulings that defy logic. Settling has absolutely no concrete connection to actual guilt. Every case is different but to assign guilt based on settling alone is idiotic and childish.

Besides which it sounds like you believe there wasn’t voter fraud in 2020 so you won’t get much traction with that argument. I bet they love you over on bluesky though. lol