You could be forgiven for thinking it’s the central reason for the GOP getting on its knees for the oaf, even the moderates. Secede y’all
USA! USA! USA!
F.
M.
D.
2 Likes
Under his eye.
5 Likes
'Murica.
1 Like
Summed it up perfectly. Holy sheet.
As we were discussing the biggest and most insidious impact of Trump is the packing of the judiciary. The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that they don’t think gerrymandering is illegal.
And fuc.k
1 Like
Well Democrats can do it legally now too!
1 Like
Wow. Love the reasoning. Yes, this violates the constitution. But as the constitution doesn’t have explicit rules to say how to decide on this issue, who are we to decide where a line is drawn?
You’re the ■■■■■■■ Supreme Court, deciding where the line is is your job!
3 Likes
I can foresee in the not too distant future a rather large correction happening in the States, and it may not be peaceful. The country is all kinds of ■■■■■■ up and getting worse. The Handsmaid’s Tale is very rapidly becoming a possibility rather than a fantasy.
On the flip side the Trumpies are going nuts over the Census ruling by the Supreme Court.
So it’s not cutting just one way
Currently in Seattle and what I saw is no doubt normal for those who live in the US. There was a rally walking down 3rd avenue waving pro Trump banners - which is fine, if that’s who they support. Big police presence escorting them - there was only about 50 of them tops.
Anyway, what stood out for me was their chant… NRA, NRA, NRA, NRA.
That was disturbing. Not sure if they are passionately NRA, or if they are just being provocative. But it does reflect the culture here.
3 Likes
The same way the US Gov can magically pay for endless war and trillion dollar Wall St bailouts. Funny how no one ever seems to ask how that’s paid for.
He’s proposing a Wall St transaction tax I believe.
1 Like
Que bien, cabron!
Yes and isn’t that just the heart of the problem? It corrodes voters’ faith in the system.
Reading the decision, the dissent from Justice Kagan is scathing! Even Chief Justice Roberts majority decision is, at best, ambivalent, relying on the absence of a constitutional legal standard to preserve the status quo. His comment that ‘[e]xcessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust’ arguably hints at his openness to reversing his decision.
I’d guess that this issue will be revisited in the future. Possibly after one of the states amends its constitution to include an appropriate legal standard.
3 Likes
Anyone see that Australian journalist in portland put in hospital?
Yes, the people that did that should be charged.
We know how that’s paid for. By having no safety net costs and the strongest economy in the world. Up until the Repubs got in and decided to cut taxes, so for now its debt.
Bernie is going for a Wall st transaction tax heh? Does he believe he’d be able to get that through a democrat congress/senate?
If a state amends its constitution then that is fine anyway, it wouldn’t then need to go to the US supreme court. It only goes to the US Supreme Court if a state law/procedure breaches the federal constitution.
Kennedy already punted this saying there was no system, it came back with clear mathematical models to show that there is a way of measuring bias and therefore not being over biased. Roberts has “officially” punted it, but given the process is already there, what he’s really done is say “we don’t want this, we’re going to officially ignore your mathematical model, and to avoid you coming back again with a different model, we’re saying since there is no model in the constitution we can solve this”. Then puts his fingers in his ears and sings la la la la la.
1 Like