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
I have a question about gerrymandering; how exactly does it work? I know the basic principle behind gerrymandering is drawing up voting district lines on a state legislative level in such a way that one party has an unfair advantage, but how does that happen? Is it like how all the states have different 'points' attached to them in the electoral college, but on a smaller scale?
Furthermore, are these things decided solely at the state level or does it require some kind of federal involvement? Because if it's just at state level, I don't see what's stopping a potential democrat head of state government (I'm not sure if it's the state governor or the senator/representative who fills that role) from redrawing all the district lines to make it fairer? (Or, conversely, make it biased in their favour, which could wind up backfiring in the future in ways that have already been elaborated upon).
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jul 1st 2018 at 9:56:30 AM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Yes, but his presidency is delegitimized by proving that he colluded with a foreign power to win, it should be a solid basis for building impeachment cases against the SC justices he nominated. If it's proven that he committed a crime to become president, the argument can be made that his SC picks should be invalidated because he shouldn't have been president in the first place.
Unless the impeachment requirements for justices are more stringent than those for the president (which are incredibly vague and broad), being nominated by an illegitimate president should be a strong argument for removing them.
![]()
![]()
Districting is done at the state level, and it's not just the governor that has control over it. The legislature in most cases draws the map. The governor could veto it, but that's about it. The party would need control of the state Senate/House to actually do what you suggest, which is how the Republicans went nuts with it in 2010.
Edited by TheRoguePenguin on Jul 1st 2018 at 2:01:50 AM
Barring conservative justices dropping dead, retiring early, or spontaneously growing a conscience, the only ways the Supreme Court is going to swing back to liberal in our lifetimes is either packing the court once we get the White House back, or impeaching conservative justices. We've already discussed how difficult packing the court would be, and why it would be a bad idea because the next conservative president could just do it back, so that just leaves impeachment.
In that light, impeaching Trump's appointees on the basis that the president who nominated them was illegitimate due to collusion with a foreign power during his campaign is our strongest chance of swinging the court back to the left in our lifetimes. It's a long shot, but it's a nice thought that will keep me going until the next one.
![]()
![]()
I see. I suppose this is as good a time as any to ask how exactly the Republicans got a majority in Congress in the first place. Was it something Obama did during that time? I remember seeing his ratings having a 'negative dip' roughly around the 2010 midterms. My memory on what happened back then is fuzzy. ...I mean, I was still in upper school at the time. :V
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jul 1st 2018 at 10:13:10 AM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!
x7 Basically, it works like this:
Imagine you have a city and a outlying rural area that needs to be divided into five districts. The most common kind is called “cracking”, basically rather than the five districts being four rural areas and the city it’s five rural districts each with a tiny sliver of city attached to it. This way rather than 4 rural red districts and one urban blue district you have 5 red districts and the blue voters are effectively marginalized. When done across an entire state you can make it so it’s incredibly difficult for your enemy to win any elections.
There are other strategies, but basically it involves drawing the maps to make every district fall your way.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 1st 2018 at 2:14:52 AM
They should have sent a poet.In that light, impeaching Trump's appointees on the basis that the president who nominated them was illegitimate due to collusion with a foreign power during his campaign is our strongest chance of swinging the court back to the left in our lifetimes. It's a long shot, but it's a nice thought that will keep me going until the next one.
Disagreeing with you politically is not an impeachable offense. For the same reasons that packing the court is bad, establishing that being appointed by the opposition party's President suddenly is an impeachable offense would similarly destroy the function of the Supreme Court.
Once again: anything we do comes with a permission slip for the Republicans to go nuts doing the same thing when the wheel turns again. Which it always will.
EDIT: Regarding gerrymandering. While this particular map has been struck down by the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania had what is quite possibly the best illustration of gerrymandering in recent history. The PA district map was so thoroughly butchered in order to provide district advantages to Republicans that it produced what has been termed the Goofy Kicking Donald District
◊.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 1st 2018 at 3:19:38 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yes, it was called being black.
The simple fact that a black man got elected motivated the conservatives to turn out in droves for the election, much like Trump is doing for us...
Disagreeing with you politically is not an impeachable offense. For the same reasons that packing the court is bad, establishing that being appointed by the opposition party's President suddenly is an impeachable offense would similarly destroy the function of the Supreme Court.
That's... not what I said. The case for impeaching them wouldn't be "the other party picked them," it would be "an illegitimate president picked them." If Trump is impeached and convicted for colluding with a foreign power to become president, it delegitimizes his presidency, and should therefore invalidate his judicial nominations.
Edited by Wryte on Jul 1st 2018 at 2:40:35 AM
![]()
That and the DNC was in a terrible state under his watch. He completely skimped on the infrastructure necessary for electoral success.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 1st 2018 at 2:57:34 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe selections were ratified by Congress. Really, anybody could nominate, as long as it was their legal job, and it would still be up to Congress to approve. Yu'd have a hard time convincing the Supreme Court that the basis for their own selection poisons their integrity.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenOn paper they are suposed to be apolitical, and the life long apointments allow them to incure immense experiance without having to worry about there decisions being unpopular(it is important to remember that at its time Interracial Marriages, and I think Roe vs Wade were examples of this).
In practice though, reality is political.
In theory they are apolitical. It's just that parties are an ideology as much as they are an organization.
A conservative justice wouldn't necessarily support voter suppression laws because he wants Republicans to win in those states. But he would support voter suppression laws because he thinks black people shouldn't vote. That opinion is part of the reason why a conservative President appointed him, after all.
These people aren't pretending to believe in an ideology in order to belong to the party. They belong to the party because it reflects their ideology. You can have still have that ideology even if you're in an "apolitical" position and can't support the party.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 1st 2018 at 4:57:29 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Mind you, the appointment has already run into problems.
Kennedy's son has been noted to have financial ties to Trump. The investigation of his retirement has begun.
Criminal proceedings are one way to block this.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 1st 2018 at 3:58:37 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Yeah, proof please. While people have pointed out the business relationship, there's been nothing about investigating anything, just speculation about that relationship.
Also, it doesn't have to be blackmail. It could be a bribe! Or, you know, just Trump trying to build a chummy, to his advantage relationship using this previous relationship as an in. Just because something is slimy and calculated doesn't mean everything he's done involves something illegal.
I found a Snopes thing talking about it
, it says it's unproven, though.
Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 1st 2018 at 7:12:39 AM
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.As far as court-packing goes, besides just disagreeing with their ideology, I've thought the problem with Republican justices is that at this point we're basically assuming that their ideology determine the ruling of the cases, instead of the actual circumstances of the cases.
So long as the packed court wasn't just to put people in positions who would just rubber stamp anything Democrats/Progressives like, I wouldn't have an issue with it. It still makes things better than we can probably expect from anyone Trump would appoint.
According to the New York Times, Trump's administration has been buttering up Kennedy
for some time now to encourage him to retire.
And when Justice Gorsuch took the judicial oath in April 2017 at a Rose Garden ceremony, Justice Kennedy administered it — after Mr. Trump first praised the older justice as “a great man of outstanding accomplishment.”
...
Then, after Justice Gorsuch’s nomination was announced, a White House official singled out two candidates for the next Supreme Court vacancy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati.
The two judges had something in common: They had both clerked for Justice Kennedy.
In the meantime, as the White House turned to stocking the lower courts, it did not overlook Justice Kennedy’s clerks. Mr. Trump nominated three of them to federal appeals courts: Judges Stephanos Bibas and Michael Scudder, both of whom have been confirmed, and Eric Murphy, the Ohio solicitor general, whom Mr. Trump nominated to the Sixth Circuit this month.
...
About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.
Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. “Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today,” she wrote. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand.”

I'm not really sure that's actually legal, even if he's impeached that doesn't mean he wasn't the duly elected President.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang