3 ms·

> > but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. > In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban

> > but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering. > In other words, it's up to the legislatures to ban gerrymandering first before SCOTUS can rule on it. The gerrymandered legislatures, you mean? The idea that the states can cheat in elections how they will, even federal elections, and there is no recourse - do you not see that even if this has the color of law, it is in fact _wildly unjust_? > As for Citizens United, the law granted the FEC to pick and choose Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. This is true of all agencies, police organizations and the like. --- These two are crappy decisions that are bad for the country and bad for the average citizen. The people who defend them never do so on the basis of justice or fairness, because on that matter they are indefensible. In their hearts, they think, "Our evil side will be able to win and win and win forever if we set the rules to 'Cheat Mode'".

throw10920 4y ago
> The idea that the states can cheat in elections how they will, even federal elections, and there is no recourse This is false. The recourse, and the correct course of action, is for state citizens to be shown convincing evidence that gerrymandering is unjust and bad (which isn't hard to provide) and elect better representatives. Representatives elected via gerrymandered elections still do actually have to be voted for by members of those districts, and so a sufficiently large grassroots effort will likely succeed. > Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. This is selective enforcement. I hope you agree that that's bad. > These two are crappy decisions that are bad for the country and bad for the average citizen. No, they're decisions that are consistent with the constitutional system of the United States. They have undesirable outcomes because of the laziness of voters, but they are principled and correct. Subversion of the tripartite system of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to try to obtain a better outcome is obviously unsustainable and extremely abusable - a clearly terrible idea, advocated for only by those with a partisan desire for some specific changes to be made, and not because the justices are actually doing a bad job (so far).
mannerheim 4y ago
> do you not see that even if this has the color of law, it is in fact _wildly unjust_? It's not good, and it's certainly not ideal, but it's much worse for the courts to be usurping powers they don't have. > Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. > This is true of all agencies, police organizations and the like. The FEC specifically gave exemptions selectively to certain organisations. Not 'they didn't have the resources to pursue this' but 'they said it was ok for Michael Moore to do this but not Citizens United'. > In their hearts, they think, "Our evil side will be able to win and win and win forever if we set the rules to 'Cheat Mode'". I'm so glad you're able to glimpse into my heart of hearts and determine what I think for myself.

throw10920 4y ago

> The idea that the states can cheat in elections how they will, even federal elections, and there is no recourse This is false. The recourse, and the correct course of action, is for state citizens to be shown convincing evidence that gerrymandering is unjust and bad (which isn't hard to provide) and elect better representatives. Representatives elected via gerrymandered elections still do actually have to be voted for by members of those districts, and so a sufficiently large grassroots effort will likely succeed. > Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. This is selective enforcement. I hope you agree that that's bad. > These two are crappy decisions that are bad for the country and bad for the average citizen. No, they're decisions that are consistent with the constitutional system of the United States. They have undesirable outcomes because of the laziness of voters, but they are principled and correct. Subversion of the tripartite system of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to try to obtain a better outcome is obviously unsustainable and extremely abusable - a clearly terrible idea, advocated for only by those with a partisan desire for some specific changes to be made, and not because the justices are actually doing a bad job (so far).

mannerheim 4y ago

> do you not see that even if this has the color of law, it is in fact _wildly unjust_? It's not good, and it's certainly not ideal, but it's much worse for the courts to be usurping powers they don't have. > Given the FEC's extremely limited budget, the fact that they can only enforce a subset of violations is completely necessary. > This is true of all agencies, police organizations and the like. The FEC specifically gave exemptions selectively to certain organisations. Not 'they didn't have the resources to pursue this' but 'they said it was ok for Michael Moore to do this but not Citizens United'. > In their hearts, they think, "Our evil side will be able to win and win and win forever if we set the rules to 'Cheat Mode'". I'm so glad you're able to glimpse into my heart of hearts and determine what I think for myself.