Supremes favor Gerrymandering

[_moksha]

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - In a major blow to election reformers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected efforts to rein in the contentious practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to entrench one party in power by turning away challenges to political maps in Maryland and North Carolina.

The justices, in a 5-4 decision with the court's conservative in the majority and liberals in dissent, ruled in a decision with nationwide implications that judges do not have the ability to curb the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. The court sided with Republican lawmakers in North Carolina and Democratic legislators in Maryland who drew electoral district boundaries that were challenged by voters.

In helping write the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh added, "I like beer". Justice Clarence Thomas then made a comment about a hair on Kavanaugh's beer can.

[_aussieguy55]

The Democrats should now rigged California so very few GOP members are elected.

[_Dr. Shades]

Out of curiosity, aussieguy55, why do you care so much about a country in which you don't live?

[_moksha]

Out of curiosity, aussieguy55, why do you care so much about a country in which you don't live?

Good point. Being a so-called "Australian" why doesn't he hold his tongue and let us destroy ourselves? With the US out of the way, they would have less resistance in putting the South Pole at the top of all those school globes.

[_Chap]

Out of curiosity, aussieguy55, why do you care so much about a country in which you don't live?

Why shouldn't he?

Pardon me, Dr. S., but with that question aren't you edging a little too close to suggesting that non-US-citizens need to justify their presence here in a way that citizens do not?

That is not exactly the same thing as uninviting them, but it is a step in that direction.

[_Dr. Shades]

Out of curiosity, aussieguy55, why do you care so much about a country in which you don't live?

Why shouldn't he?

Pardon me, Dr. S., but with that question aren't you edging a little too close to suggesting that non-US-citizens need to justify their presence here in a way that citizens do not?

That is not exactly the same thing as uninviting them, but it is a step in that direction.

I was hoping my question wouldn't come across that way. Alas, it appears that I failed.

Here's the deal: One may express whatever opinion one wants on any topic, or have an interest in whatever subject, but I reserve the right to be intrigued as to why. Somewhat similar to this case, I don't live in Botswana, so I have no interest whatsoever in the inner political workings of that nation. Therefore, I'm wondering why aussieguy55 has such a keen interest in the politics of what amounts to Botswana from his point of view.

[_Chap]

I was hoping my question wouldn't come across that way. Alas, it appears that I failed.

Yup, you did.

I don't live in Botswana, so I have no interest whatsoever in the inner political workings of that nation. Therefore, I'm wondering why aussieguy55 has such a keen interest in the politics of what amounts to Botswana from his point of view.

Of course. To most of the rest of the world, the politics of the US have as little impact on their lives as the politics of Botswana.

Dr. S, this line of argument does not seem to me to have a very bright future.

[_subgenius]

for what it's worth, Supreme Court ruled that they had no legal footing to decide the gerrymandering issue and that it was a State legislature issue.
So, the thread title is the usual mischaracterization by Libs.

[_subgenius]

Out of curiosity, aussieguy55, why do you care so much about a country in which you don't live?

Why shouldn't he?

Pardon me, Dr. S., but with that question aren't you edging a little too close to suggesting that non-US-citizens need to justify their presence here in a way that citizens do not?

That is not exactly the same thing as uninviting them, but it is a step in that direction.

or you could assume that the question is just a simple question and doesn't have a nefarious motive. You guys always want to obsess and steer discussions toward what you believe to be "really going on" rather than the reality presented before you. Shades' question is appropriate inasmuch as we can also infer that aussie is "edging a little close" to the attitude of imperialism by being someone who meddles in other people's affairs.
Why don't you question aussie's motives? and why so quick to push back on Shades' inquiry?
me thinks old English empire building habits are hard to break.

[_subgenius]

Of course. To most of the rest of the world, the politics of the US have as little impact on their lives as the politics of Botswana.

Dr. S, this line of argument does not seem to me to have a very bright future.

Ahh...so this, magically, justifies aussie's right to meddle?

Perhaps the bright future is made by you understanding why you believe there is an "impact" on aussie's life from a Supreme Court decision on letting State legislatures determine districts.