Supreme Court rejects conservative bid to count only voting-age population for districts

[Crabtownboy]

Conservatives wishes rejected again ... and it was not even close. They took a real whooping.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...393e52-fa6f-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states may satisfy “one person, one vote” rules by drawing legislative districts based on total population of a place, a defeat for conservative interests who wanted the districts based only on voting-age populations.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was considered to be one of biggest on voting rights this term, and a decision the other way would have shifted political power away from urban areas, where Democrats usually dominate, and toward more Republican-friendly rural areas.

 

[Alcott]

Politically motivated all around.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Politically motivated all around.

Strange comment seeing that all 8 judges sided against the conservatives. Obviously the case had no merits and the justices gave a sound spanking to the GOP's efforts to discriminate against a whole lot of folks and skew elections in their, the GOP's favor.

 

[Alcott]

So the more kids you have, the more your vote counts. Get welfare perks, have still more kids, and vote into office more sugar daddies who will encourage more kids. Ain't that easy politics?

 

[Zaac]

Conservatives wishes rejected again ... and it was not even close. They took a real whooping.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...393e52-fa6f-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that states may satisfy “one person, one vote” rules by drawing legislative districts based on total population of a place, a defeat for conservative interests who wanted the districts based only on voting-age populations.

The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, was considered to be one of biggest on voting rights this term, and a decision the other way would have shifted political power away from urban areas, where Democrats usually dominate, and toward more Republican-friendly rural areas.

Way to go SCOTUS. It would make absolutely no sense to apportion representatives to Congress one way and then turn around and base legislative districts on voting age population instead of total population.

I would venture if you could show the number of representatives that the GOP would get in the House would be drastically reduced if this method was use to apportion Representatives, they would quickly change their minds.

 

[Zaac]

So the more kids you have, the more your vote counts. Get welfare perks, have still more kids, and vote into office more sugar daddies who will encourage more kids. Ain't that easy politics?

So you're mad that because they had more kids than you, there's more of them, and your privileged vote gets outweighed?

That's really all this has been about. The GOP is scared out of its pants over the black and browning of America. And because the math is against them, they have to come up with some ways to make sure that fewer black and brown people get to vote.

Nothing but a rehash of the Southern Strategy. They can't come right out and say "We don't want so many black and brown people being considered as people because that cancels out, and bypasses the the number of Whites and plays favorably for the Dems." Instead they say let's pass a law that draws districts based on voting age population instead of total population because "this gives us back our rightful advantage". They don't say that last part out loud either, but people with good sense understand that's why it's being done.

Yep. Nothing but a continued attempt to replace Jim Crow with his cousin, James Crow ESQ.

 

[Zaac]

So the more kids you have, the more your vote counts. Get welfare perks, have still more kids, and vote into office more sugar daddies who will encourage more kids. Ain't that easy politics?

Apparently the GOP thinks that the only kids who should receive political representation are the unborn ones.Whistling

 

[Alcott]

Apparently the GOP thinks that the only kids who should receive political representation are the unborn ones.

I don't know who ever said that (besides you), but I'll never go along your communist utopia ideals, nor that an unborn baby is a nonperson a minute before birth and becomes a person the next minute. Nor that an eagle embryo has the right not to be sucked out of its shell, but a human embryo has no rights at all.

 

[Zaac]

I don't know who ever said that (besides you), but I'll never go along your communist utopia ideals, nor that an unborn baby is a nonperson a minute before birth and becomes a person the next minute. Nor that an eagle embryo has the right not to be sucked out of its shell, but a human embryo has no rights at all.

I didn't say that anyone said it. But as often as the radicalized right talks about abortion and the rights of the unborn, you'd think they would be jumping at the chance to make sure that all life is equally represented.

Which again is why I've said in the past that abortion is nothing more than a political tool for the GOP. Most of them don't give a flying hoot about life. If they did, they'd do the same for all life.

And this attempt to not have under voting age people counted in determining districts shows first hand what the true motives are.

And that motive is to win elections no matter what. Does explain the Romney support.

 

[Alcott]

I didn't say that anyone said it.

So you're telepathic? If a lot of people 'think' something, then some say it somewhere.

But as often as the radicalized right talks about abortion and the rights of the unborn, you'd think they would be jumping at the chance to make sure that all life is equally represented.

Since anyone under 18 can't vote, they are not represented. Or so the whole theory about voting rights goes.

And that motive is to win elections no matter what. Does explain the Romney support.

No, the lesser of evils explains that. romney's mormon background v. obama's GDA background...it really did come down to politics.

 

[Zaac]

So you're telepathic? If a lot of people 'think' something, then some say it somewhere.

If you spit in my face, you don't have to tell me why. Likewise with this situation.

Since anyone under 18 can't vote, they are not represented. Or so the whole theory about voting rights goes.

If they aren't represented, then no one should be making laws about them. So in that regard the right would have to stop with its cries against abortion.

No, the lesser of evils explains that. romney's mormon background v. obama's GDA background

Evil is evil.

...it really did come down to politics.

Which is why I've said it amounts to idolatry. Some of you basically said, as you will this election cycle also, forget God and Christian convictions, we need to win this election at all costs.

IDOLATRY.

 

[Revmitchell]

While the issue is political it is also a practical one. This is but a debate over whether illegal aliens should be involved in the redistricting and the voting process.While the "total population" has been the standard since the founding the problem now is that we have illegals who live in overwhelming numbers.

This decision did shoot down this attempt to make more fair the legitimate voting process. This decision in no way shuts down other possibilities to deal with this problem.

 

[Sapper Woody]

We've long held, since the revolutionary war, the idea of "no taxation without representation". Personally, I've always thought it should go the other way, too. " No representation without taxation ". Originally, I used that to speak of American non-state territories, that get to vote, but are untaxed.

Now, I think it should extend to individuals. If I am not supporting the government with my taxes, then I shouldn't get a vote. This may sound harsh, but if one is on welfare, they're not paying taxes, and shouldn't get to vote. The reason is, they will vote for whoever will allow them more benefits on welfare. It's only human nature. Therefore, welfare buys votes. This may sound heavily biased in favor of Republicans, but I don't care how it sounds.

Fair is fair, even if it seems to favor someone. The perception of fair does not alter the reality of fair.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Crabtownboy]

While the issue is political it is also a practical one. This is but a debate over whether illegal aliens should be involved in the redistricting and the voting process.While the "total population" has been the standard since the founding the problem now is that we have illegals who live in overwhelming numbers.

This decision did shoot down this attempt to make more fair the legitimate voting process. This decision in no way shuts down other possibilities to deal with this problem.

If you remember your history there was a time when only white landowners could vote.
There was a time when women were not allowed to vote.
There was a time when no person of color was allowed to vote.

And changes to these laws were bitterly opposed ... primarily by white old men.

Now conservatives want to make it impossible for anyone not registered to be counted and represented while at the same time they are trying, unsuccessfully for the most part, to bring back Jim Crow laws in new dresses.

White old men, and not so white men are simply afraid of loosing their white privileged ... which, of course, they deny. {Socrates Cave you know?}

You would think an 8 to 0 decision would teach them something, but it won't.

Roflmao

 

[Zaac]

While the issue is political it is also a practical one.

Yeah it's practically a ploy by the GOP to once again marginalize certain lives.

This is but a debate over whether illegal aliens should be involved in the redistricting and the voting process.While the "total population" has been the standard since the founding the problem now is that we have illegals who live in overwhelming numbers.

That ain't all the problem. The problem is that there has been an overwhelming increase in legal brown people born too and they along with the black population are outnumbering Whites.

Yall certainly didn't have a problem "COUNTING" them when it was time to do the Census and apportion House seats or get federal dollars.

But now because the GOP realizes the math simply doesn't work in their favor, they want to change the rules to once again favor them. The SCOTUS got this one right and said NO!

This decision did shoot down this attempt to make more fair the legitimate voting process.

Oh please. This didn't have anything to do with fairness and everything to do with the majority trying to make sure they stay in the majority while hiding their true motives behind a law. Again, a variation of the Southern Strategy that no one is falling for.

This decision in no way shuts down other possibilities to deal with this problem.

Yes we know that the GOP is hard at work drafting legislation that allows them to suppress the vote and representation of back and brown people under the guise of law.

James Crow, ESQ.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes crabby we all know you hate white people

We've long held, since the revolutionary war, the idea of "no taxation without representation". Personally, I've always thought it should go the other way, too. " No representation without taxation ". Originally, I used that to speak of American non-state territories, that get to vote, but are untaxed.

Now, I think it should extend to individuals. If I am not supporting the government with my taxes, then I shouldn't get a vote. This may sound harsh, but if one is on welfare, they're not paying taxes, and shouldn't get to vote. The reason is, they will vote for whoever will allow them more benefits on welfare. It's only human nature. Therefore, welfare buys votes. This may sound heavily biased in favor of Republicans, but I don't care how it sounds.

Fair is fair, even if it seems to favor someone. The perception of fair does not alter the reality of fair.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Its not harsh it is reality.

 

[Zaac]

If you remember your history there was a time when only white landowners could vote.
There was a time when women were not allowed to vote.
There was a time when no person of color was allowed to vote.

And changes to these laws were bitterly opposed ... primarily by white old men.

Now conservatives want to make it impossible for anyone not registered to be counted and represented while at the same time they are trying, unsuccessfully for the most part, to bring back Jim Crow laws in new dresses.

White old men, and not so white men are simply afraid of loosing their white privileged ... which, of course, they deny. {Socrates Cave you know?}

You would think an 8 to 0 decision would teach them something, but it won't.

Roflmao

In my long list of not rating, I'm gonna do a rarity and make this one a WINNER! You flat out nailed it.

This is nothing more than a variation of Jim Crow trying to hide itself behind the law. It's the well ballyhooed Southern Strategy that Lee Atwater spoke to.

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni##er, ni##er, ni##er." By 1968 you can't say "ni##er" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni##er, ni##er."

The GOP has been using "The Law" as an abstract way to suppress the votes and representation of black and brown people. It's the continued marginalization of lives.

 

[Zaac]

Yes crabby we all know you hate white people

If he hates white people, then we all know you hate black and brown people.

 

[Zaac]

We've long held, since the revolutionary war, the idea of "no taxation without representation". Personally, I've always thought it should go the other way, too. " No representation without taxation ". Originally, I used that to speak of American non-state territories, that get to vote, but are untaxed.

Now, I think it should extend to individuals. If I am not supporting the government with my taxes, then I shouldn't get a vote. This may sound harsh, but if one is on welfare, they're not paying taxes, and shouldn't get to vote. The reason is, they will vote for whoever will allow them more benefits on welfare. It's only human nature. Therefore, welfare buys votes. This may sound heavily biased in favor of Republicans, but I don't care how it sounds.

Fair is fair, even if it seems to favor someone. The perception of fair does not alter the reality of fair.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

What kind of taxes are we talking about? Income? Property?Sales,etc?

Should old folks who have retired be excluded, if we're talking income tax?

 

[Alcott]

If you spit in my face, you don't have to tell me why. Likewise with this situation.

Oh, thanks. You spared me a little trouble if we ever meet in person.

Evil is evil.

Alright, David was evil, so Israel was evil for not bumping him off, let alone still honoring him today with that star associated with him.