Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Jupiterian Local
Trump to withdraw deportation protections for families of active troops.
The attorneys are racing to submit applications for what is known as parole in place after hearing from the wives and loved ones of deployed soldiers who have been told that option is "being terminated."
The protections will only be available under rare circumstances, the lawyers said they've been told.
"It's going to create chaos in the military," said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who represents recruits and veterans in deportation proceedings. "The troops can't concentrate on their military jobs when they're worried about their family members being deported."
Edited by LeGarcon on Jun 27th 2019 at 10:45:36 AM
Oh really when?@wisewillow: The constitution doesn’t say anything about how districting should be representative of their political make up. That’s pretty much the entire basis of this ruling.
It’s a pretty dire situation really. The current political map makes it extremely difficult for Democrats to get elected and now it will only get worse.
I’m honestly not sure if the Big Tent Democratic Party can last under this pressure, especially not if Trump is reelected.
@Native Jovian: That’s hardly a comfort since the nature of the Senate already heavily favors Republicans.
Edited by Mio on Jun 27th 2019 at 10:51:25 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
It’s not a rough slap. It’s holding democracy’s head underwater. Maybe we can thrash free, but.... very very VERY bad.
The Constitution is overall very vague. There’s a ton of room for interpretation based on how issues affect basic rights. Having your vote nullified by surgically constructing unrepresentative partisan maps is a blatant violation of equal protection and voting rights. I took election law last year; if someone ever says “oh, courts can’t do anything, not explicitly in the Constitution” that’s a damn lie.
Edited by wisewillow on Jun 27th 2019 at 7:51:47 AM
One bad decision, one good one: Breaking: Supreme Court blocks 2020 Census citizenship question; says administration explanation insufficient.
![]()
I love the responses to that tweet. No, citizenship is not relevant to allocation of federal funding.
![]()
The news pretty much broke after the gerrymandering case. We haven't moved on yet.
More info on the Census citizenship case.
Edited by tclittle on Jun 27th 2019 at 9:57:09 AM
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Gerrymandering is something that the party in power will do if at all possible. It doesn't matter which one. If it was the Democrats or Whigs or whoever in the same position to draw districts they would make similar decisions to limit the impact of their opponents.
Every algorithmic redistricting strategy is going to have strengths and weaknesses. The question is "in what way do you want them to he equal" for me, objectiveity is key and compactness is very objective.
It's also worth noting that this only affects partisan gerrymandering. You can still fight shitty districting on the basis of racial gerrymandering. And the two are tightly intertwined.
Don't get me wrong, this is going to set back efforts to clean up the GOP's shitshow by years. Congress is going to have to pass something setting explicit standards for drawing districts. That won't happen until Democrats hold both Houses plus the presidency, so 2021 at minimum. But it's a delaying tactic, not a game changer.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Census decision doesn’t end the case; it kicks it back. Not awful but not a final victory.
And yes, having a citizenship question will affect funding. For very many reasons. It leads to undercounting minority populations and consequently less funding.
The entire motive was to racially skew the census.
A new U.S. Census Bureau research paper found that 8% of the population could be undercounted if the citizenship question is added, because households with noncitizen members might question the confidentiality of their responses and choose not to respond, fearing possible government misuse of the data.
Oh. Oh dear. I’m so sorry because this is gonna sound condescending, but racial gerrymandering is no help at all. The courts have been pretty shitty at overturning anything less than a gerrymander using the n-word on record or getting caught using racial data. And all the republicans have to say is “no, it’s cause black people vote democrat, not cause they’re black” and this decision says that’s ok.
No, it isn’t- because the court has declared open season. No blatant partisan gerrymandering can be overturned by ANY federal court going forward.
Edited by wisewillow on Jun 27th 2019 at 8:08:37 AM
The gerrymandering ruling is a continuation of the status quo, with the flow having gone against it, in recent years. The citizenship question was arguably the more important decision, so I'm okay it happened this way instead of the other way around.
Life is unfair...If you know something is condescending, then maybe figure out how to say it without being an asshole about it instead of going "I know this makes me sound like an asshole, but I'm going to say it anyway".
You think I don't know that the courts have a shitty record on racial gerrymandering? I wasn't saying "it's okay, this decision is no big deal! You can just file the same lawsuits but replace the word 'partisan' with 'racial' and everything will be fine!". I was pointing out a detail of the ruling that people may have missed. The ruling was not "gerrymandering in any form is acceptable". It was "gerrymandering for partisan advantage does not violate federal law". You can attack the same problem from multiple directions. "These districts are bullshit because of partisan gerrymandering" is off the table, but "these districts are bullshit because they're racially discriminatory" is still a viable route to getting them thrown out.
It's not a slam dunk, but I never suggested it was. All I was saying is that while this ruling sets up a roadblock on one method of fighting gerrymandering, other paths — difficult though they may be — still exist.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Oh well, better give up and move to Canada, then.
I have very little patience for doomsaying. If you want to insist that improving anything is impossible and we're all fucked no matter what we try to do, then fine, whatever. I'm just not interested in that conversation.
Edited by NativeJovian on Jun 27th 2019 at 11:36:44 AM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
She's not saying that change is impossible, just that this is worse news than it can initially appear.
Because unfortunately, the Republican Party had been defending racial gerrymandering under the "partisan gerrymandering" clause, so...
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Exactly. I’m not saying this can’t be fought, I’m just saying it’s very serious and racial gerrymandering isn’t a good way to fight.
Apologies for being condescending; I took electoral law last year so sometimes I get frustrated and terse with others’ opinions on it. That’s not fair, as my frustration comes from context that most people don’t have, because, uh, it’s unreasonable to expect people to research and read electoral case law in their free time.
In social media related political news, just recently reddit put the rather infamous subreddit r/The_Donald under quarantine
. It's about damn time given how the moderation just flat out refused to crack down on blatant violations of the site's TOS.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Jun 27th 2019 at 12:05:51 PM
"In general I think people focus excessively on how sincere a politician's beliefs appear to be, hence the popularity of people like Bernie Sanders, a long serving senator with fairly average political accomplishments who has been using the same stump speech for 30 years, only to gain unexpected traction "
Yeah, I feel a part of unicorn chaser logic is bleeding a little bit into political landscape, in a "but how this politician feel than anything else" that could allow to populism become even more efective tool eventually.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Well, it depend, sometimes certein politician does give you vibes before they show their true colors.
I mean is hard to find someone like obama who can rise emotion on people and...well you know, actually having politics who back that up.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
