Why did they expect a supreme court staffed by Trump's drones to give any form of straight answer? It isn't like they're going to give up their only means of actually winning without a very hard fight.
Only Gorsuch and the solicitor general have anything to do with Trump. At least they didn't rule it constitutional and disenfranchise every black person not in New York or California.
1/9 of the supreme court was put in place by trump
the fucking standing question is ridiculous. who can prove they've been hurt on such a large systematic scale? its again a case where the courts are ignoring statistics and mathematics in favor of antiquated proceedings, increasingly if you can commit a crime big enough you'll be able to get away with it because no court judge or congress can prove you even committed a crime
Jesus Christ you muppet.
These were two unanimous decisions from fundamentally the same court that legalized gay marriage.
Or were they Trump's stooges then too?
The Court's last response to a gerrymandering case, was pretty much "it's bad but we can't say it's constitutional or not since there's no objective way to measure it". One of the cases was (at least partly) about
whether a test called the "efficiency gap" would be objective enough to use. Maybe they didn't think so?
Here's an idea: why don't we just ditch voting districts and have everyone count in the overall vote?
I guess in your scenario you'd vote for all your state's reps at the same time, tbh might not work well in states like California with 55 reps.
If the unimplemented twelfth part of the Bill of Rights was an amendment the House would have over 5,000 members lol.
they didn't rule on anything really, when people say they punted they really did.
How would more seats change it?
pretty positive he means presidential election votes and not state level votes
I'm not saying make it 1000 but we have had 438 reps in the house since the late 20s, we certainly can afford to go to 500
Which is why they get two senators just like every other state? That's kinda literally the entire point of having the senate in addition to the house.
yes but the small states actually hold a larger share of the house than they should have because of the cap on the house and the way reapportionment goes
Yes, but that's how it should be? Am I just misinterpreting the first post I replied to? Cause this one kinda sounds more or less like you're agreeing with what I meant with my first post.
Seems like you're talking about, without specifically mentioning, the Wyoming Rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
Me? I was referring to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
