You gotta love the complete and total abdication by the US Supreme Court when it comes to gerrymandering. That ruling has emboldened these anti-democratic loons in WI. Out and out theft of the levers of power by the WI GOP. First they tried to kneecap Evers before he ever got into office and now this. And honestly, as a laboratory of dem…
You gotta love the complete and total abdication by the US Supreme Court when it comes to gerrymandering. That ruling has emboldened these anti-democratic loons in WI. Out and out theft of the levers of power by the WI GOP. First they tried to kneecap Evers before he ever got into office and now this. And honestly, as a laboratory of democracy, WI is proving to be invaluable in teaching the rest of the GOP how to repeatedly overrule the will of the voters. And the stunning hypocrisy by the conservative members of the WI Supreme Court is the cherry on this shit sundae.
Everyone should read this article in the Atlantic about the ways in which American democracy, with its sclerotic institutions, has fallen behind almost every other democracy in the free world in terms of fair representation and majority rule.
There are a lot of details, but the crucial observation is this:
------------
What makes the situation so dangerous is that this privileged partisan minority has abandoned its commitment to democratic rules of the game. In other words, the Constitution is protecting and empowering an authoritarian partisan minority.
------------
This is the pit from which our democracy seems incapable of extricating itself. How can we fix rules that systematically favor one party over the other, given that the party in power is likely to be the favored one and thus has no incentive to enact reforms that threaten their rule? If both sides have a commitment to maintaining a democratically fair system, and take a long term view of the health of our democracy, this can work.
But, as in our case, when the party currently enjoying the benefits of minority rule has attained power through raw demagoguery, convincing their voters that every election is a battle for the country's very existence, democratic fairness ceases to be a concern. Holding on to power becomes a matter of existential importance, and any compromises made in the name of fairness come to be seen as naively academic.
Our only way out of this is to communicate to the American public – in particular, the younger generations who will one day be in charge, about the importance of reviving the legitimacy of our democracy. Unfortunately, this will involve selling them on how the American right has been the principal author of this conundrum, which will seem like a mixed message when trying to argue for good-faith fairness. But there is simply no getting around the fact that we are where we are due to a decades-long effort by Republicans to institutionalize minority rule through the Supreme Court, and to delegitimize their political opposition as being unworthy to govern.
The GOP knows that they can only remain in power by cheating. The cheating takes various forms. Voter suppression and gerrymandering being the primary means of keeping minority rule in many blue and purple states such as Wisconsin.
Are you really surprised that the US Fascist Court did nothing? They believe in states rights, as long as those rights support good Christian values; not the diabolical left-wing radical agenda.
Are you really surprised after learning that, not one, but at least three religious wing-nuts on the court, are bought and paid for by “right-wing billionaires and have been taking bribes for decades?
Is it at all surprising that the same people tasked with interpreting one of the most ambiguous documents ever written in US history, The Constitution, can’t even figure out how to fill out a financial disclosure form properly?
So why would you be surprised, in the age of Trump, that as republicans lose control and power in many swing states, that they would humiliate themselves and stoop to such malevolent extremes, and deny democrats the ability to govern at all?
Wisconsin wasn’t anomaly. In Florida, where I live, DeSatan has removed two Democratically elected democratic DA’s for committing the crime of not prosecuting defendants to “Il Dunces,” I mean DeSatan’s liking. Not to mention, the book bans and taking over the boards of education in counties and at the university level.
In Arizona, republicans are trying to change elections laws to deny hundreds of thousands of people the right to vote.
In Texas, the governor has removed the School Superintendent in Houston, the largest school system in Tx, with a handpicked sycophant.
There are currently seven states with democratic governors but also have heavy gerrymandered Republican legislatures which are taking powers away from the executive.
So are you really surprised that these state GQP’s, who can see the writing on the wall, will try to subvert democracy as its final swan song?
Just like the parable of the frog and the scorpion; it’s in their nature!...:)
This isn't about religion as much as it is about unearned power and the gluttony of some, mostly in the GOP in the USA just now, to get it and keep it at any cost to any others.
Authoritarian states are not born. They are made. Often using the veneer of "democratic actions" or "lawful acts" -- think Turkey/Erdogen or Hungary/Orban. Even Putin's Russia tried and failed to go down a different path at one brief point. So we can look at Turkey, Hungary, most of South America, and some of Asia, and see our future step by step by step under the hands of MAGA and lustful gluttonous Republicans.
It is heart breaking that there are no John McCains or Barry Goldwaters (or even Mitt Romney as he was 20 years ago) anywhere to be found now. Men of principle, integrity, honor, honesty, are more important than men's policies and preferences -- today's GOP lacks all of that -- and much of what they are doing (with the help of Democrats looking the other way, pretending it isn't happening) is LEGAL... technically.... (for instance, NOWHERE in a democratic Republic should ANY politician be able to REMOVE an elected official without damn good cause! But then they shouldn't be able to rig elections either.)
Money and controlling "theology" is power. In the end it's all about power, or call it control. The rest is a way to amplify it. And yes, in the end it's a vicious circle of power for powers sake. There is no definitive goal except more power. It's self energizing. But yes, many fanatics are addicted to the layers of support, in this case theology or as we like to call it "Religion" of the theistic, retributive god type.
Well, there is nothing really in the Constitution that says courts have authority to intervene in redistricting matters, so calling it an "abdication" is a bit much. I am very much conflicted on the issue. I really would love for courts to set some guidelines on redistricting so they are much more competitive from a partisan standpoint, but the other part of me doesn't believe there is any authority for courts to take that role.
That’s the Originalist interpretation, but lots are things are omitted in the Constitution. Our founders count have perceived the world we live in today, or gerrymandering, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me to be an equal protection issue. The extreme gerrymandering that the Republicans have done disenfranchises the majority of voters in the state.
The Constitution (the "Guarantee Clause" says it is the responsibility of the United States to guarantee a "republican form of government." The Constitution is silent on whether this is up to the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts. But the Federal government is specifically charged, by the Constitution, to ensure that states have a "republican form of government." What the heck that means is anyone's guess. But my point is not how that would be interpreted, but that the Constitution explicitly (if very vaguely) gives the Federal Government the power to redress state government issues.
All these comments made me think about how the Federal government intervened to end the laws passed by Southern states during Jim Crow to prevent African Americans from voting; most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act which outlawed these state laws.
I would think that if a state is blatantly preventing equal representation of voters of different political beliefs, as seems to be happening in Wisconsin, there would be an argument that the federal government should intervene. Which branch of the government should intervene is something I am not sure of.
The first amendment exists and the Court would be well within its power to limit gerrymandering under its purview. What the WI GOP is doing isn’t democracy. This is repeatedly subverting the will of the voters. And the judiciary isn’t holding up its end of the bargain in this system of checks and balances.
That's rather innovative. I'd like to see the argument constructed. Do recall that the First Amendment existed since 1791 -- before poll tax elimination and the rights of women and minorities were assured. No constitutional bright guy here, but the 14 and 19 amendments more typically applied to the idea granting the vote.
I will say about Wisconsin: it's so-called Progressive era failed to establish the citizen initiated referendum. The result of this is that Wisconsin, outside of the courts, has zero chance of having the voters create a non-partisan body devoted to redistricting. Both of those matters are up to the legislature and of course Vos would have zero interest in citizen initiative or the creation of an independent body for apportionment. That said, the Democrats are too concerned with apportioning by community -- the pack part of crack and pack. I'd like to see a mathematical solution to this based on headcounts alone, no excessive consideration for proximity to central place services, or red-lined zip codes.
As someone once said, elections have consequences. Still more proof, if any were needed, that the 2016 presidential election was the most consequential one in modern memory, if not the entire history of the United States.
Elections seem to have consequences for our side, but as you see here they don’t believe in any consequences for their side and will disregard or undermine at every juncture.
“As someone once said, elections have consequences.”---Deutschmeister
Not just the election: The future. It doesn’t matter who the president is, as much as the Judges who get lifetime appointments. Make no mistake, anyone of these republican clowns will be beholden to the Federalist Society.
That said, Presidents come and go: four to eight years, but federal judges have life-time appointments. They’ll make rulings for decades, and if republicans continue to lose power, so will the executive. These judges will rule by judicial fiat, and strike down any consequential laws democrats enact.
Is it me, or does every time a republican take the executive, our Supremacist Court expand executive powers under the Unitary Executive Theory. Yet, under democrats, any executive actions are executive overreach, and are usually met with an unfavorable opinion by these religious fascists?
And who is this “someone” everyone keeps hearing about? He seems wise!...:)
Don't know for sure but probably related to "They." 60-some years ago a wise old uncle (he was 4 years older than I) told me, when I had made a comment beginning with "They say...," that "They say that 'They say' is a liar."
Yes, we know, that's why she won the popular vote despite not being very popular. Elections have consequences, but I can't help but notice that if the election winner had been the vote winner, we wouldn't be in dire straits today.
Well, if you’ll recall, some folks got the idea in their head that Hillary was just too awful to vote for because they couldn’t have their One True Bernie on the ballot in November. So they figured that if their states weren’t likely to be close, they’d just vote for Jill Stein.
Now, look at that very closely while you consider these data points from the 2016 election:
1. Most prognosticators did not expect Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania to be close in Hillary’s favor.
2. Trump won all three.
3. The Jill Stein vote, alone, in all three was greater than Trump’s margin of victory. (And that’s not including Gary Johnson votes to boot.)
4. If Hillary had carried those three states, she’d have won the election.
So, just in case people aren’t getting my drift: yes, your vote matters. Protest votes can swing elections. Be very careful what you do with your ballot.
I kept trying to tell people then that, regardless of what you want, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was going to be taking the oath of office in January 20th, 2017, and if you didn’t want it to be him, you HAD to vote for her. Not enough people listened to people like me and decided to FA&FO.
The movie metaphor I keep coming back to for “finding out” is the scene from Tora, Tora, Tora, where an officer who’d wanted tons of confirmation that radar contacts coming into Hawaii were actually Japanese planes, and the guy he’d said that to is standing in front of a window looking on Pearl Harbor in flames, and growls, “You wanted confirmation? Take a look! THERE’S your confirmation.”
Well said indeed. I would like to take a moment and thank those folks who indulged their inner child and voted for Stein or Johnson because we all know that there was absolutely zero difference between Clinton and Trump. They were clearly equally bad. As I always say, there is a group of people who also indulge their inner child and do counterproductive things without regard for the consequences - and they are called children. And that includes George Bush (43) who according to reports voted "none of the above". But, really, how could someone so disconnected from national politics like he was have a considered opinion about who the next President should be. At least the people who voted for Trump took an honest stand even if I considered it to be glaringly stupid.
You gotta love the complete and total abdication by the US Supreme Court when it comes to gerrymandering. That ruling has emboldened these anti-democratic loons in WI. Out and out theft of the levers of power by the WI GOP. First they tried to kneecap Evers before he ever got into office and now this. And honestly, as a laboratory of democracy, WI is proving to be invaluable in teaching the rest of the GOP how to repeatedly overrule the will of the voters. And the stunning hypocrisy by the conservative members of the WI Supreme Court is the cherry on this shit sundae.
Everyone should read this article in the Atlantic about the ways in which American democracy, with its sclerotic institutions, has fallen behind almost every other democracy in the free world in terms of fair representation and majority rule.
There are a lot of details, but the crucial observation is this:
------------
What makes the situation so dangerous is that this privileged partisan minority has abandoned its commitment to democratic rules of the game. In other words, the Constitution is protecting and empowering an authoritarian partisan minority.
------------
This is the pit from which our democracy seems incapable of extricating itself. How can we fix rules that systematically favor one party over the other, given that the party in power is likely to be the favored one and thus has no incentive to enact reforms that threaten their rule? If both sides have a commitment to maintaining a democratically fair system, and take a long term view of the health of our democracy, this can work.
But, as in our case, when the party currently enjoying the benefits of minority rule has attained power through raw demagoguery, convincing their voters that every election is a battle for the country's very existence, democratic fairness ceases to be a concern. Holding on to power becomes a matter of existential importance, and any compromises made in the name of fairness come to be seen as naively academic.
Our only way out of this is to communicate to the American public – in particular, the younger generations who will one day be in charge, about the importance of reviving the legitimacy of our democracy. Unfortunately, this will involve selling them on how the American right has been the principal author of this conundrum, which will seem like a mixed message when trying to argue for good-faith fairness. But there is simply no getting around the fact that we are where we are due to a decades-long effort by Republicans to institutionalize minority rule through the Supreme Court, and to delegitimize their political opposition as being unworthy to govern.
Sorry, forgot to post the link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/
The GOP knows that they can only remain in power by cheating. The cheating takes various forms. Voter suppression and gerrymandering being the primary means of keeping minority rule in many blue and purple states such as Wisconsin.
Oh don't worry, I'm sure the SCOTUS Republicans will step in on a gerrymandering case that benefits Republicans.
And then, in subsequent years will ignore the precedent when applied to a gerrymandering case that would benefit the Dems.
Are you really surprised that the US Fascist Court did nothing? They believe in states rights, as long as those rights support good Christian values; not the diabolical left-wing radical agenda.
Are you really surprised after learning that, not one, but at least three religious wing-nuts on the court, are bought and paid for by “right-wing billionaires and have been taking bribes for decades?
Is it at all surprising that the same people tasked with interpreting one of the most ambiguous documents ever written in US history, The Constitution, can’t even figure out how to fill out a financial disclosure form properly?
So why would you be surprised, in the age of Trump, that as republicans lose control and power in many swing states, that they would humiliate themselves and stoop to such malevolent extremes, and deny democrats the ability to govern at all?
Wisconsin wasn’t anomaly. In Florida, where I live, DeSatan has removed two Democratically elected democratic DA’s for committing the crime of not prosecuting defendants to “Il Dunces,” I mean DeSatan’s liking. Not to mention, the book bans and taking over the boards of education in counties and at the university level.
In Arizona, republicans are trying to change elections laws to deny hundreds of thousands of people the right to vote.
In Texas, the governor has removed the School Superintendent in Houston, the largest school system in Tx, with a handpicked sycophant.
There are currently seven states with democratic governors but also have heavy gerrymandered Republican legislatures which are taking powers away from the executive.
So are you really surprised that these state GQP’s, who can see the writing on the wall, will try to subvert democracy as its final swan song?
Just like the parable of the frog and the scorpion; it’s in their nature!...:)
This isn't about religion as much as it is about unearned power and the gluttony of some, mostly in the GOP in the USA just now, to get it and keep it at any cost to any others.
Authoritarian states are not born. They are made. Often using the veneer of "democratic actions" or "lawful acts" -- think Turkey/Erdogen or Hungary/Orban. Even Putin's Russia tried and failed to go down a different path at one brief point. So we can look at Turkey, Hungary, most of South America, and some of Asia, and see our future step by step by step under the hands of MAGA and lustful gluttonous Republicans.
It is heart breaking that there are no John McCains or Barry Goldwaters (or even Mitt Romney as he was 20 years ago) anywhere to be found now. Men of principle, integrity, honor, honesty, are more important than men's policies and preferences -- today's GOP lacks all of that -- and much of what they are doing (with the help of Democrats looking the other way, pretending it isn't happening) is LEGAL... technically.... (for instance, NOWHERE in a democratic Republic should ANY politician be able to REMOVE an elected official without damn good cause! But then they shouldn't be able to rig elections either.)
It’s not religion that drives them, its money, and making sure that the people that have it get more of it. That’s what they are being paid to do.
Agreed, but some are religious fanatics and rule by their theology.....:)
Money and controlling "theology" is power. In the end it's all about power, or call it control. The rest is a way to amplify it. And yes, in the end it's a vicious circle of power for powers sake. There is no definitive goal except more power. It's self energizing. But yes, many fanatics are addicted to the layers of support, in this case theology or as we like to call it "Religion" of the theistic, retributive god type.
Well, there is nothing really in the Constitution that says courts have authority to intervene in redistricting matters, so calling it an "abdication" is a bit much. I am very much conflicted on the issue. I really would love for courts to set some guidelines on redistricting so they are much more competitive from a partisan standpoint, but the other part of me doesn't believe there is any authority for courts to take that role.
That’s the Originalist interpretation, but lots are things are omitted in the Constitution. Our founders count have perceived the world we live in today, or gerrymandering, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me to be an equal protection issue. The extreme gerrymandering that the Republicans have done disenfranchises the majority of voters in the state.
The Constitution (the "Guarantee Clause" says it is the responsibility of the United States to guarantee a "republican form of government." The Constitution is silent on whether this is up to the Executive, the Legislature, or the Courts. But the Federal government is specifically charged, by the Constitution, to ensure that states have a "republican form of government." What the heck that means is anyone's guess. But my point is not how that would be interpreted, but that the Constitution explicitly (if very vaguely) gives the Federal Government the power to redress state government issues.
All these comments made me think about how the Federal government intervened to end the laws passed by Southern states during Jim Crow to prevent African Americans from voting; most notably the 1965 Voting Rights Act which outlawed these state laws.
I would think that if a state is blatantly preventing equal representation of voters of different political beliefs, as seems to be happening in Wisconsin, there would be an argument that the federal government should intervene. Which branch of the government should intervene is something I am not sure of.
The first amendment exists and the Court would be well within its power to limit gerrymandering under its purview. What the WI GOP is doing isn’t democracy. This is repeatedly subverting the will of the voters. And the judiciary isn’t holding up its end of the bargain in this system of checks and balances.
That's rather innovative. I'd like to see the argument constructed. Do recall that the First Amendment existed since 1791 -- before poll tax elimination and the rights of women and minorities were assured. No constitutional bright guy here, but the 14 and 19 amendments more typically applied to the idea granting the vote.
I will say about Wisconsin: it's so-called Progressive era failed to establish the citizen initiated referendum. The result of this is that Wisconsin, outside of the courts, has zero chance of having the voters create a non-partisan body devoted to redistricting. Both of those matters are up to the legislature and of course Vos would have zero interest in citizen initiative or the creation of an independent body for apportionment. That said, the Democrats are too concerned with apportioning by community -- the pack part of crack and pack. I'd like to see a mathematical solution to this based on headcounts alone, no excessive consideration for proximity to central place services, or red-lined zip codes.
This is the heart of the matter: the intellectual corruption of the US Supreme Court has enabled the end of democracy in Wisconsin.
As someone once said, elections have consequences. Still more proof, if any were needed, that the 2016 presidential election was the most consequential one in modern memory, if not the entire history of the United States.
I'll say it again. Hillary was right.
Elections seem to have consequences for our side, but as you see here they don’t believe in any consequences for their side and will disregard or undermine at every juncture.
“As someone once said, elections have consequences.”---Deutschmeister
Not just the election: The future. It doesn’t matter who the president is, as much as the Judges who get lifetime appointments. Make no mistake, anyone of these republican clowns will be beholden to the Federalist Society.
That said, Presidents come and go: four to eight years, but federal judges have life-time appointments. They’ll make rulings for decades, and if republicans continue to lose power, so will the executive. These judges will rule by judicial fiat, and strike down any consequential laws democrats enact.
Is it me, or does every time a republican take the executive, our Supremacist Court expand executive powers under the Unitary Executive Theory. Yet, under democrats, any executive actions are executive overreach, and are usually met with an unfavorable opinion by these religious fascists?
And who is this “someone” everyone keeps hearing about? He seems wise!...:)
Don't know for sure but probably related to "They." 60-some years ago a wise old uncle (he was 4 years older than I) told me, when I had made a comment beginning with "They say...," that "They say that 'They say' is a liar."
Yes, we know, that's why she won the popular vote despite not being very popular. Elections have consequences, but I can't help but notice that if the election winner had been the vote winner, we wouldn't be in dire straits today.
Well, if you’ll recall, some folks got the idea in their head that Hillary was just too awful to vote for because they couldn’t have their One True Bernie on the ballot in November. So they figured that if their states weren’t likely to be close, they’d just vote for Jill Stein.
Now, look at that very closely while you consider these data points from the 2016 election:
1. Most prognosticators did not expect Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania to be close in Hillary’s favor.
2. Trump won all three.
3. The Jill Stein vote, alone, in all three was greater than Trump’s margin of victory. (And that’s not including Gary Johnson votes to boot.)
4. If Hillary had carried those three states, she’d have won the election.
So, just in case people aren’t getting my drift: yes, your vote matters. Protest votes can swing elections. Be very careful what you do with your ballot.
I kept trying to tell people then that, regardless of what you want, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump was going to be taking the oath of office in January 20th, 2017, and if you didn’t want it to be him, you HAD to vote for her. Not enough people listened to people like me and decided to FA&FO.
The movie metaphor I keep coming back to for “finding out” is the scene from Tora, Tora, Tora, where an officer who’d wanted tons of confirmation that radar contacts coming into Hawaii were actually Japanese planes, and the guy he’d said that to is standing in front of a window looking on Pearl Harbor in flames, and growls, “You wanted confirmation? Take a look! THERE’S your confirmation.”
Well said indeed. I would like to take a moment and thank those folks who indulged their inner child and voted for Stein or Johnson because we all know that there was absolutely zero difference between Clinton and Trump. They were clearly equally bad. As I always say, there is a group of people who also indulge their inner child and do counterproductive things without regard for the consequences - and they are called children. And that includes George Bush (43) who according to reports voted "none of the above". But, really, how could someone so disconnected from national politics like he was have a considered opinion about who the next President should be. At least the people who voted for Trump took an honest stand even if I considered it to be glaringly stupid.
So very well said!!!
Honestly, it turns out she was being way too charitable.