@kevcvs57 saidSonhouse says the repubs want Power and more Power. I have asked him if he means that Dems do not want power, but he will not answer that. The answer, of course, is that both want the same amount of power.
It’s the big capitalist corporations that want permanent power and they see the GOP as their best Trojan horse to permanent residency in the White House.
Corporations see real democracy as a treat to their profit margins and a bi yearly cause of market instability.
But yeah the the case you mentioned is a huge leap toward a permanent GOP dictatorship.
So, Kev, you know Sonhouse....can you tell us why he will not admit that Dems want Power, too?
@AverageJoe1
JEBSUS, it is about power every 4 years and winner gets a smooth violence free transfer of power. I don't care if repubs win FAIRLY. But that is not what they are after and if you DON'T know that YOU are the one DAFT.
Moscow Mitch laid it out clears as a bell ON CAMERA, NO policy, ONLY getting power. THAT is the repub agenda and nothing more, except making new laws to guarantee more arrests of civilians.
@sonhouse saidYou are all over the place, Sonhouse. I'm glad I like you. Do you think Dems Don't want power? What in the world?
@AverageJoe1
Tell me what YOU think majority rule is. To me it is the winner is the one who gets the most votes. Now I assume you will diss the electoral college and what then? So we get rid of the electoral college and go with votes like in a lot of other democracies.
I think what you want is if someone wins by 4 % or so the other bunch should have near equal representat ...[text shortened]... are tied by the hip to big pharm and of course a dozen other big corps which is their ONLY concern.
Sure, I will tell you what majority rule is. A majority of a designated populace, like the USA citizens, can control all of the other people in the country. Like, 51% can control 49%. I am sure
that I mentioned that somewhere. Pretty simple concept.
You mention above that I will diss the electoral college?? Must be a mistype on your part.
Then, you're saying that I would make it where a group who loses a vote by 4% should have near equal representation in congress. What do you mean by 'near'? And, today, as Dems control congress, the Repubs DO have near equal representation in congress. So, I don't get you there. Another mistype, perhaps.
@sonhouse saidIt is not fair to say to a guy on the street selling hotdogs that 'Repubs want Power and more power!", and then storm off. You see, he would be like me, and think.....
@AverageJoe1
JEBSUS, it is about power every 4 years and winner gets a smooth violence free transfer of power. I don't care if repubs win FAIRLY. But that is not what they are after and if you DON'T know that YOU are the one DAFT.
Moscow Mitch laid it out clears as a bell ON CAMERA, NO policy, ONLY getting power. THAT is the repub agenda and nothing more, except making new laws to guarantee more arrests of civilians.
'I think Dems are equally as interested in having Power. What is that man trying to say? Maybe he did not finish his point."
@sonhouse saidI am a communist for what it is, not what you think it is.
@Metal-Brain
BLA BLA BLA. You are an avowed communist. That tells ALL of it right there. You HATE the US and want to destroy our democracy and that is RINGINGLY clear.
Democrats are merely moderate republicans. Biden went Trump at the border. How do you feel about that?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-turning-trump-era-rule-121907682.html
@Metal-Brain
You can come out and just say you want the US to turn into an autocracy or a religious autocracy.
This is about as fundamental a challenge to the US system of democracy in 200 years.
But you and the rest of the lying zombies downplay it like it could never happen here.
The forces of evil are working on that right now both in repub zombie state legislators and the Moore case.
So tell me, do you WANT the US to be a democracy or do you want us to turn into another autocratic state like Russia, China, Iran?
@sonhouse
Of those, respondents were asked to rank various people and institutions. The top threat? The mainstream media, with 59% saying it poses a "major threat to democracy," 24% saying the MSM poses a 'minor' threat to democracy, and just 16% who think there's no threat at all.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mainstream-media-poses-major-threat-democracy-according-poll
@Metal-Brain
It just shows how much the average intelligence of the human race has gone down since the advent of Trump and his clones.
As if polls would swing SCOTUS. Just another diversion from what you want to reveal next.
@sonhouse saidYou are fine with domestic election meddling from the news media and big tech, Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Why would you care about domestic election meddling by SCOTUS?
@Metal-Brain
It just shows how much the average intelligence of the human race has gone down since the advent of Trump and his clones.
As if polls would swing SCOTUS. Just another diversion from what you want to reveal next.
https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/10/27/poll-majority-of-americans-say-big-tech-censorship-of-hunter-laptop-story-interfered-with-election/
You condone election meddling when the democrats do it. You only care when the republicans do it. You only want justice for thee, not ye. You are a partisan driven hypocrite. That is why they intentionally divide people, so you will condone it when your side does wrong. It works too. Too well not to divide and conquer you both. When the republicans do it they can say it is "whataboutism" to defend their side's hypocrisy too.
Just wait until a republican gets in office and democrats get censored for the truth. You will hate the very censorship precedent you created and republicans will defend it for partisan reasons. Then when a democrat gets an election stolen from him or her for real nobody will believe it except democrats. All of your court cases will be rejected on standing instead of merit and there will be nothing you can do about it.
You already supported the end of democracy because of your trump derangement syndrome. That ship has sailed and it is your fault for not realizing you set the precedent for democrats too, not just republicans.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@metal-brain saidThe mainstream media is not "it". They are "them", a lot of them. Anyone who thinks of the mainstream media as an "it", and as "the" enemy, is a brain-washed fool who has only ever watched one semi-mainstream TV channel: Fox "News".
@sonhouse
Of those, respondents were asked to rank various people and institutions. The top threat? The mainstream media, with 59% saying it poses a "major threat to democracy," 24% saying the MSM poses a 'minor' threat to democracy, and just 16% who think there's no threat at all.
@metal-brain saidHell, MB, did you say the mainstream media? Donald Trump has been telling us that for about six years now he coined the phrase fake news. Where have you been?
@sonhouse
Of those, respondents were asked to rank various people and institutions. The top threat? The mainstream media, with 59% saying it poses a "major threat to democracy," 24% saying the MSM poses a 'minor' threat to democracy, and just 16% who think there's no threat at all.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mainstream-media-poses-major-threat-democracy-according-poll
@sonhouse saidThen here comes Sean House, totally missing the point, MB shows that it is the main stream, fake news, and Sunhouse said it is Trump who told us all about fake news. And the worm turns.
@Metal-Brain
It just shows how much the average intelligence of the human race has gone down since the advent of Trump and his clones.
As if polls would swing SCOTUS. Just another diversion from what you want to reveal next.
@sonhouse for those who refuse to go to this link, here is the article. I believe a decision in favor of Moore would also open the door to state legislatures deciding how their representatives to the Electoral College vote. The popular vote in a presidential election would just be a recommendation and not binding. This is why some states tried to send alternates on January 6th, 2020.
What is Moore v. Harper about?
In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court will decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the legislature’s illegally gerrymandered congressional map for violating the North Carolina Constitution. The legislators have argued that a debunked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — known as the "independent state legislature theory” — renders the state courts and state constitution powerless in matters relating to federal elections.
Last year, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated state legislature passed, on a party-line vote, an extreme partisan gerrymander to lock in a supermajority of the state’s 14 congressional seats. The gerrymander was so extreme that an evenly divided popular vote would have awarded 10 seats to the Republicans and only four to the Democrats. The map was a radical statistical outlier more favorable to Republicans than 99.9999% of all possible maps.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases, voters contested the map in state court, contending that the map violated the state constitution’s “free elections clause,” among other provisions. In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map, describing it as an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander . . . designed to enhance Republican performance, and thereby give a greater voice to those voters than to any others.”
The unrepentant legislature proposed a second gerrymandered map, prompting a state court to order a special master to create a fair map for the 2022 congressional elections. Unwilling to accept this outcome, two Republican legislators asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and reinstate their gerrymandered map.
What has happened so far in the case?
The Supreme Court hasn’t made any substantive rulings yet. In March, the Court rejected the legislators’ emergency appeal to put the gerrymander back in place immediately. At the urging of four justices, however, the legislators filed a regular appeal asking the Court to consider whether to reinstate their map for elections after 2022. In June, the Court agreed to take up the case. The parties will file briefs over the summer and fall, with oral argument happening thereafter. The Court will likely issue its decision before July 2023.
What are the gerrymanderers arguing before the Supreme Court?
In urging the Supreme Court to reinstate the gerrymandered congressional map, the North Carolina legislators are relying on an untenable misreading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause known as the independent state legislature theory.
The Elections Clause delegates to states the power to regulate federal elections while giving Congress the overriding authority to make or alter such laws. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory — like the gerrymanderers — read the Elections Clause to give state legislators near-exclusive authority to regulate federal elections, prohibiting any other state entity — like state courts or governors — from placing checks and balances on that power. In this case, the gerrymanderers are arguing that the theory licenses them to violate the state constitution when drawing congressional maps and that the state courts do not have the power to stop them.
What’s wrong with the independent state legislature theory?
The independent state legislature theory runs contrary to the constitutional text, history, practice, and precedent. The framers famously distrusted state lawmakers, so much so that when they drafted the Elections Clause, they insisted that Congress retain the ultimate power to set the rules for federal elections. The framers would not have established — and indeed did not establish — a regime that would permit state legislatures to regulate federal elections without the ordinary checks and balances that apply to state lawmaking power. State practice, from the country’s founding to today, also refutes the theory. For example, many framers — including James Madison — voted to adopt state constitutions that regulated federal elections, as North Carolina’s does today.
On top of this overwhelming historical evidence, the theory makes no sense: it would be absurd for a state legislature to be allowed to violate the very state constitution that created it. Other problems doom the theory, as an avalanche of recent scholarship demonstrates. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the theory for over a century, including as recently as 2015 and 2019.
The Supreme Court could decide Moore without having to address the independent state legislature theory. As we have previously explained, the North Carolina General Assembly itself enacted the state constitutional provisions that prohibit extreme partisan gerrymandering and expressly authorized state courts to review and remedy unlawful congressional maps. In other words, the state courts just did what the legislature told them to do.
Why did the Court take the case?
The Supreme Court has not explained why it decided to take the case, although that’s not unusual. However, some justice’s statements at earlier points in the case shed some light. When the Supreme Court denied emergency relief to the gerrymanderers in March, three justices — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch — voiced support for the theory, as they had previously done in other dissenting opinions in 2020 elections cases. A fourth justice — Brett Kavanaugh — voted to leave the court-approved map in place for the 2022 elections, but he said that he saw “serious arguments” on both sides.
None of these justices, however, have had the benefit of oral argument and full briefing before formulating their perspectives. And crucially, whereas it takes five public votes for the justices to decide a case, it only takes four private votes for the Court to take a case for review. So the fact that four justices voted to hear Moore doesn’t mean that a majority is willing to endorse the unprecedented arguments offered by the state lawmakers in the case. The Court could still reject the theory and reaffirm the way our elections have worked for over two centuries.
What are the broader stakes?
The immediate issue in Moore is whether the state legislators’ extreme partisan gerrymander will stand in North Carolina. But adopting the independent state legislature theory would also mean that voters across the country have no judicial remedy — in state court or in federal court — to fight partisan gerrymandering.
The potential consequences could stretch still further. The theory would throw elections into chaos, nullifying hundreds of election rules put in place through ballot initiatives, state constitutions, and administrative regulations — including foundational state policies like the processes for voter registration and mail voting and basic guarantees like the secret ballot. State lawmakers would be able to adopt vote suppression legislation without any checks or balances from state courts or even gubernatorial veto. In other words, the theory would upend key aspects of our elections.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@sonhouse saidYes.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/moore-v-harper-explained
It seems most of the posters here are rightwingers.
I assume you will be ecstatic at the death of democracy and your repub party in power permanently.
That's what you all want isn't it?
Not gonna deny it, I think the USA would be a lot better off if every Democrap in congress fell over dead today.
@AverageJoe1
So you don't think the Moore case is repub work? Or the laws being written in repub zombie states to allow the use of fake electors legally. Show me ONE state where dems are doing ANYTHING like that.
You are either pushing for distraction or know exactly what is going on and have decided distraction is the best way for us to think there is nothing there.
Guess what