Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

You betcha!

PS: I hope your surgery was successful and your recovery uneventful...

Thanks, so far so good!

Originally Posted by william chiu

freedom of expression, cherish it

We agree on that William.   I just wish I could understand what the heck your expressions mean.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the latest episode of Theo Von’s podcast Thursday that he once snorted cocaine off of a toilet seat while talking about not fearing germs."

“I’m not scared of a germ, you know. I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats."

"His remark on Von’s show garnered some pushback. Brad Woodhouse, the president of Protect Our Care, a health care advocacy group, gave a one-word statement about Kennedy’s comments: “Resign.”

"The same organization projected messages on the HHS building in Washington, D.C., last month, accusing Kennedy of “MAKING AMERICA SICKER AGAIN,” with another message reading “MEASLES HQ.”


https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5736499-kennedy-cocaine-toilet-seat-recovery/

"Only The Best People"...

Not that it matters, but I found the Mike Tyson Superbowl ad against processed food pretty compelling.   It was produced by Kennedy’s MAHA group.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

What didn't happen in 1989?

Meanwhile, in unrelated news, the Supreme Court confirmed California’s right to aggressive retaliatory gerrymandering in a one sentence unsigned opinion.  Rod Kaufman was so apoplectic given the brevity of the court’s sinister “shadow docket“ ruling, he was rendered unable to post anything here. 😲

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Are you kidding?!

For starters, SCOTUS approves of partisan gerrymandering, period, even if it includes obvious examples of racial gerrymandering as in the recent Texas case which the court has said it does not approve of but allowed the gerrymandering in Texas to proceed anyway. So, when an obvious case of partisan gerrymandering occurs, as with that in California, then it goes without saying the court would approve it. No mystery there.

I'm eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS decision on tariffs, particularly the choices on it from Sammy and Clarence, and I'll have my say on whatever those partisan hacks have to say when that decision finally happens...

The consultant who drew the map in California publicly boasted that his maps would benefit Latino candidates. So he admits that there’s a racial component to his gerrymandering. The Supremes let it proceed anyway, because like in Texas, the primary motivation was political advantage, which is legal.

Here’s the deal Rod.   we ought to be able to agree on this, but I suspect your Thomas/Alito blinders will prohibit you from acknowledging the truth. In a state like Texas or California, any politically motivated gerrymander that benefits Republicans is also likely, as a side effect, going to disadvantage some class of minorities. Similarly, in a state like Texas or California, any politically motivated gerrymander that benefits Democrats is also likely, as a side effect, going to provide explicit electoral advantage to one racial minority or another. This is a natural and logical consequence of the fact that electoral districts have to be contiguous regions circled on a map and the fact that racial minorities favor Ds, although the gap is closing.

Me, being an objective person, have no problem recognizing that both the Texas and California gerrymanders are first and foremost politically motivated and therefore legal. Any rational being also should recognize that a side consequence is that one race or another is going to be advantaged/disadvantaged.   The lower court in Texas got it wrong because they prioritized the racial effects over the political motivation, which the Supreme Court says is not the way it’s done. It is truly hilarious that you think any meaningful distinction can be drawn between the legality of the gerrymander in California and Texas. There is none.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

The problem with gerrymandering is that it circumvents the idea of a House of Representatives that the founders intended which is to be representative of the population at a granular level (at least as far as I can tell). We're going to end up with a Senate and a Jr Senate if gerrymandering plays out fully. I would hope the Supreme Court would be a safe guard against this happening, but as James said, they seem to approve of gerrymandering from a philosophical standpoint and somehow expect Congress to handle it.

Am I wrong?

I don't think any citizen likes gerrymandering.  It is the parties that love it, since it facilitates power. 

All The Constitution requires is that the number of Representatives be apportioned by population.  Somewhere along the line a requirement that each district be a contiguous geographical district was introduced, although the Constitution is silent on that point.  Everyone wants "logical" contiguous districts.  People in a "logical" neighborhood or district ought not be split by a gerrymander, right?   That what the people want.  (e.g. Blue Denver v. Red Colorado Springs.  or red rural v. blue urban districts where substantially, but of course not entirely, like-minder voters get a rep answerable to them.)  

I think that is the way most non-partisan commissions draw maps.  Logically, even though it is hard.  Denver and Colorado Springs do indeed have their own representatives, and those are safe D and R seats.  But gerrymandering does occur at least on the edges.  Some time ago I lived in a red part of Lakewood/Golden Colorado, but my house was gerrymandered into blue Boulder.  So it goes. 

No Gerrymandering plan lasts forever, because people move and voters change.  I was fine with some gerrymandering on the margins every ten years.  The Texas/California events will probably mean aggressive political gerrymandering every election year now, which stinks.

You'll never have a mini Senate though, since tiny states get two Senators, just like massive CA.  Thank goodness!  So even if it is possible for California or Texas to gerrymander so effectively that they have an entirely R or D house contingent, that alone will not make a mini Senate.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

The problem with gerrymandering is that it circumvents the idea of a House of Representatives that the founders intended which is to be representative of the population at a granular level (at least as far as I can tell). We're going to end up with a Senate and a Jr Senate if gerrymandering plays out fully. I would hope the Supreme Court would be a safe guard against this happening, but as James said, they seem to approve of gerrymandering from a philosophical standpoint and somehow expect Congress to handle it.

Am I wrong?

By the way, I seriously doubt the Supreme Court "approves of gerrymandering."  Rather, they are saying quite correctly that the Constitution does not prohibit gerrymandering to gain political advantage, so it is not the Court's place to block the practice.  If the people don't like it, it is our job to elect a Congress and statehouses that will implement fair rules.  So we are screwed.  Not the Court's fault though.

On the other hand, gerrymandering to deprive blacks the right to vote was common in the 20th century.  In that instance, when the undeniable motivation was racial discrimination, the Supreme Court correctly decided that racially motivated gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  So the Supreme Court was free to (and did) ban the practice of racially motivated gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by IRuss Carroll

The problem with gerrymandering is that it circumvents the idea of a House of Representatives that the founders intended which is to be representative of the population at a granular level (at least as far as I can tell). We're going to end up with a Senate and a Jr Senate if gerrymandering plays out fully. I would hope the Supreme Court would be a safe guard against this happening, but as James said, they seem to approve of gerrymandering from a philosophical standpoint and somehow expect Congress to handle it.

Am I wrong?

I’m not picking on you Russ, I hope you understand that. You’ve got me thinking…

The bolded part is correct, only if Congress, the executive, or a State  is violating the constitution or a federal statute.  I think this is a super important point that a lot of people get wrong.

Politically motivated gerrymandering, along with a whole lot of other policies the public hates, do not violate the constitution or a federal statute. In these cases, the court should not, and usually will not interfere.

I mention this because a couple of weeks ago you used the metaphor of the court as an impartial umpire. I think that is a valid metaphor, but the court can only act when they have constitutional authority to do so, specifically, interpretation/enforcement of the constitution or interpretation/enforcement of a federal statute. 

to complete the metaphor, a baseball umpire has authority to interpret and enforce the rules of the game. The baseball umpire does not have authority to change or rewrite the rules of the game. And the baseball umpire does not have authority to enact any policies outside of the rules of game, for example, they cannot set the price of tickets, decide whether or not to serve beer, or select the hotdog vendor.

not sure this is a useful post, but I was thinking about it this morning.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I definitely do not feel picked on and I appreciate the education. I would just say that it is my belief that this was not what Madison had in mind when the House of Representatives was designed, but that opinion is a product of my upbringing more than a thorough knowledge of either the law or history.

I truly believe the intent was to provide members to the House that represented the population on a granular level, the *Democratic* part of our system. It is the reason the House really is the superior branch amongst equals. The Senate is more of the *Republic* side of the street in my crude analogy.

 I think Madison would not at all be happy to find that a state like Texas or California represents one party in the House, when its population is split far more equally between two.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

So if we agree this was not the intent of the framers, and the Supreme Court feels no legal basis it can fix it, how does this get fixed? Can't lawyers argue to SCOTUS intent through other writings of the framers that put the constitution together?

Easy peasy, in theory.   The State legislatures pass laws causing the house districts to be drawn in in a rational and fair manner in their state.  CA had such a law, not sure if it was effective or not.  The CA voters jettisoned your allegedly fair districting commission in favor of bare-knuckled gerrymandering.  Of course, in view of Texas, it is hard to blame you.  But we should not expect the Supreme Court to bail us out of every mess we make.

That is it, that is the answer.  Fair and rational State re-districting laws.  We need to elect better politicians.