Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

I wonder if they'd suddenly change their tunes if Obama decided to ignore a ruling in favor of the King plaintiffs.

Spoiler

I don't have to wonder.

It's okay for Republicans to ignore laws they don't like, but not Obama.

Spoiler

Don't let Meta convince you otherwise.

 

[B-Dubs]

Fucking gamergate nerds.

Getting tired of this shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...elay_n_7444216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592







I can't voice my full thoughts on this because I can't see shit due to an eye infection, but just know I feel this guy is an idiot.

Spoiler

Thanks, Obama.

This is probably the most disgusting thing I've read all day and I had to read a thing on the East river.

 

[BertramCooper]

Just wasted 20 minutes of my life listening to that inane Tony Perkins/Roy Moore interview.

At some point this douche is going to get his ass tossed off the Alabama Supreme Court (again), right?

 

[Coriolanus]

Getting tired of this shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...elay_n_7444216.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I can't voice my full thoughts on this because I can't see shit due to an eye infection, but just know I feel this guy is an idiot.

Why? One is inclined to believe that extremism like this benefits democrats. Can't see moderates siding with stuff like that.

 

[Jooney]

What's happening here?

NYTimes: SCOTUS to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.

The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens; illegal immigrants; children; and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.

A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.

Such a decision, said Richard H. Pildes, a law professor at New York University, “would be most significant in border states, like California, Texas, Arizona and Nevada, that have the largest proportions of noncitizens.”

The Supreme Court over the past nearly 25 years has turned away at least three similar challenges, and many election law experts expressed surprise that the justices agreed to hear this one. But since Chief Justice John G. Roberts has led the Supreme Court, it has been active in other voting rights cases.

 

[HylianTom]

Just wasted 20 minutes of my life listening to that inane Tony Perkins/Roy Moore interview.

At some point this douche is going to get his ass tossed off the Alabama Supreme Court (again), right?

I wouldn't be the least bit shocked.

And here's an article detailing what's going down in Texas..
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015...hash.nKGIUvt6.uxfs&st_refDomain=&st_refQuery=

Texas Senate revives anti-gay marriage measure
State Sen. Eddie Lucio, a Democrat who’s chairs the Senate Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, added the language in committee to an omnibus bill on county government, House Bill 2977, which the full Senate could vote on anytime this week. The added language is along the lines of a controversial bill that would prohibit the use of state and local funds to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple or for recognize a same-sex marriage.

Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, said the addition of anti-gay language to an ostensibly benign piece of legislation means the bill as a whole must be defeated.

“At its core, the amendment added to HB 2977 by Sen. Lucio is an attempt to subvert any future ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the freedom to marry,” Smith said. “Pursuing a strategy to defy the Supreme Court will cost Texas taxpayers millions in litigation and cause great damage to our economy and reputation. In its present form, HB2977 must be defeated.”

One of those odd cases where a Democrat is going along with it. Still, if this passes, it keeps the issue in the news. And after the youth turnout seen in Ireland last week, I wouldn't mind a bit of that hot gay stove electoral magic in the mix next year.

 

[Wilsongt]

Why? One is inclined to believe that extremism like this benefits democrats. Can't see moderates siding with stuff like that.

Not when the extreme is becoming the norm.

 

[Amir0x]

oh my god these freaks lol

 

[B-Dubs]

What's happening here?

NYTimes: SCOTUS to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

Pretty sure we'd have to do another census if they sided with the guys bringing the suit. From what I can tell they want districts to be based on the number of registered voters or citizens and not total population, which would shift power from urban areas to rural depending on how each state decides to break it up. It would affect stuff like House seats and state government, giving rural areas more representation and urban areas less.

 

[thezerofire]

Pretty sure we'd have to do another census if they sided with the guys bringing the suit. From what I can tell they want districts to be based on the number of registered voters or citizens and not total population, which would shift power from urban areas to rural depending on how each state decides to break it up. It would affect stuff like House seats and state government, giving rural areas more representation and urban areas less.

wouldn't you have to do a new census every year? what if a ton of people register after the districts are divided, are they just not represented?

 

[NobleXenon]

How would it shift power from cities to rural? I have a hard time believing more children under eighteen and undocumented workers are packed in cities.

 

[B-Dubs]

How would it shift power from cities to rural? I have a hard time believing more children under eighteen and undocumented workers are packed in cities.

It wouldn't shift the power, but it would take away from the power cities have. Take a look at New York for example.

NYC and it's suburbs have just as many, or maybe even more, Congressional districts than Upstate New York. Even taking one or two away from NYC would tip the balance of power slightly and increase the power of the more rural areas of the state. Realistically it wouldn't do much, but on issues where the margins are razor thin and along the rural/urban divide it gives the rural areas more sway even though they don't make up as much of the population.

In a state much less populous than New York that doesn't have many large urban centers, say South Dakota, it could very well tip the balance of power toward the more rural areas.

I'm not saying their plan makes sense, it doesn't, I'm just trying to explain it.

 

[NobleXenon]

It wouldn't shift the power, but it would take away from the power cities have. Take a look at New York for example.



NYC and it's suburbs have just as many, or maybe even more, Congressional districts than Upstate New York. Even taking one or two away from NYC would tip the balance of power slightly and increase the power of the more rural areas of the state. Realistically it wouldn't do much, but on issues where the margins are razor thin and along the rural/urban divide it gives the rural areas more sway even though they don't make up as much of the population.

In a state much less populous than New York that doesn't have many large urban centers, say South Dakota, it could very well tip the balance of power toward the more rural areas.

I'm not saying their plan makes sense, it doesn't, I'm just trying to explain it.

I understand that; however, voter registration would affect all areas. Rural areas tend to have more families with children, and children can't vote. Rural areas tend to employ more undocumented workers for jobs that white people feel they're above. It would seem that changing the rules on how lines are drawn to voter registration would backfire.

Are there maps that show the density of people by voter registration only, not population as a whole? A map like that could eliminate my current belief.

 

[B-Dubs]

I understand that; however, voter registration would affect all areas. Rural areas tend to have more families with children, and children can't vote. Rural areas tend to employ more undocumented workers for jobs that white people feel they're above. It would seem that changing the rules on how lines are drawn to voter registration would backfire.

Are there maps that show the density of people by voter registration only, not population as a whole? A map like that could eliminate my current belief.

Not that I know of. The census doesn't gather that kind of data in any real detail. Like I said, their plan doesn't make much sense and I was just trying to explain what their goals were. If you go towards the end of the NYTimes article you even have Thomas saying it's a dumb idea--this was a few years in the past as this issue tends to come up every now and again. Odds are the court took the case so they could strike down the idea since it keeps coming up and taking up time that could go toward other cases. The only reason it's a story right now is because Roberts and co gutted the VRA last go around.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What's happening here?

NYTimes: SCOTUS to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

Children and felons aren't entitled to representation? Its an absurd concept. Especially considering disenfranchisement

 

[jamesinclair]

What's happening here?

NYTimes: SCOTUS to Weigh Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

This would just prompt more local areas to return to the old, better system where voting is based on residency and not federal status.

If you're Canadian and live in Miami, work in Miami, pay taxes in Miami, why the duck shouldn't you vote in local elections that concern your tax dollars?

 

[B-Dubs]

This would just prompt more local areas to return to the old, better system where voting is based on residency and not federal status.

If you're Canadian and live in Miami, work in Miami, pay taxes in Miami, why the duck shouldn't you vote in local elections that concern your tax dollars?

Do you really think that they wouldn't also fight against that? DeBlasio is trying to do that in NYC and is getting a lot of push back from the same kinds of people who would support this lawsuit.

 

[Chichikov]

Children and felons aren't entitled to representation? Its an absurd concept. Especially considering disenfranchisement

Felony disenfranchisement is an abomination and an abortion of justice, it's a fucking shame that only two states do not engage in that fuckery.

 

[jamesinclair]

Do you really think that they wouldn't also fight against that? DeBlasio is trying to do that in NYC and is getting a lot of push back from the same kinds of people who would support this lawsuit.

Yeah they can fight it, so what? I think most people support a system where those who pay taxes vote

 

[thepotatoman]

Pretty sure we'd have to do another census if they sided with the guys bringing the suit. From what I can tell they want districts to be based on the number of registered voters or citizens and not total population, which would shift power from urban areas to rural depending on how each state decides to break it up. It would affect stuff like House seats and state government, giving rural areas more representation and urban areas less.

I think it's about eligible voters, not registered voters. So basically children, felons, and non-citizen immigrants can't be counted. Or more specifically arguing that eligible voters in districts with a higher percentage of eligible voters is being discriminated against by allowing eligible voters in other districts more voting power.

So far, it seems like the courts don't care how the population gets counted, as long as it's counted equally, since they keep denying requests like this calling it a political question instead of a court question. So wouldn't that mean Texas could have chosen to only count eligible voters, but simply didn't?

So that's why I'm confused. Am I wrong in saying that it seems like states rights are already in effect here? If states rights is already how it works in practice, what's the goal? Just making things judicially clear as states rights while changing nothing? Just taking the opportunity to ideologically stick it to felons and immigrants, even though it doesn't really change anything?

I can't imagine less states rights working to increase gerrymandering, unless they're trying to force blue states into gerrymandering themselves to the republicans benefit.

 

[B-Dubs]

I can't imagine less states rights working to increase gerrymandering, unless they're trying to force blue states into gerrymandering themselves to the republicans benefit.

I think this is the goal. Nothing else really makes sense, the whole case sounds nonsensical and the more I delved into it the less sense it makes.

 

[jamesinclair]

Here's one big issue:

At least in New Jersey, there are many, many municipalities where there are more registered voters than there are residents.

People move. People die. Registration rolls don't reflect that.

 

[B-Dubs]

Here's one big issue:

At least in New Jersey, there are many, many municipalities where there are more registered voters than there are residents.

People move. People die. Registration rolls don't reflect that.

There's a lot of issues with doing districts that way, shit they'd have to be redone every year to account for population change which means we wind up voting every year because what if a state's population of registered voters went down and had to lose a district or if a large enough people turned 18 and registered to vote and a district had to be added? There's a whole lot of issues with the idea, the whole thing is poorly thought out and just plain dumb.

I'm not surprised to learn that about Jersey because if there was ever going to be voter fraud it would have to be in Jersey.

 

[kess]

Conservative megatroll Chuck Johnson finally got kicked off Twitter.

The best part about this story is how this guy absolutely detested another Charles Johnson. Absolutely mental about it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah they can fight it, so what? I think most people support a system where those who pay taxes vote

Poor people don't deserve a vote!

Equating taxes with democracy and citizsnship is a horrible idea. The two aren't connected. Since that would imply children should be given the vote, travelers should be given, resident aliens (I'm less opposed to this philosophically but its still troublesome), corporations should vote etc.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Here's one big issue:

At least in New Jersey, there are many, many municipalities where there are more registered voters than there are residents.

People move. People die. Registration rolls don't reflect that.

Everything is based on census population: federal monies, electoral college, etc. Why should we change it for the house?

 

[Coriolanus]

Poor people don't deserve a vote!

Equating taxes with democracy and citizsnship is a horrible idea. The two aren't connected. Since that would imply children should be given the vote, travelers should be given, resident aliens (I'm less opposed to this philosophically but its still troublesome), corporations should vote etc.

He never said anything about those who pay taxes being the only ones that get a vote.

Plus poor people do pay taxes and all.

 

[thepotatoman]

Republican senator Olympia Snowe made a statement undermining the conservative's case in the King v Burwell case.

“I don’t ever recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges in terms of the availability of subsidies,” said Olympia J. Snowe, a former Republican senator from Maine who helped write the Finance Committee version of the bill.

“It was never part of our conversations at any point,” said Ms. Snowe, who voted against the final version of the Senate bill. “Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies? It was not their fault if their state did not set up an exchange.” The four words, she said, were perhaps “inadvertent language,” adding, “I don’t know how else to explain it.”

 

[B-Dubs]

He never said anything about those who pay taxes being the only ones that get a vote.

Plus poor people do pay taxes and all.

He was being funny. There are people who think that way though.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Republican senator Olympia Snowe made a statement undermining the conservative's case in the King v Burwell case.

Would have been nice if the person who wrote the fucking bill voted for the fucking bill

 

[jamesinclair]

He never said anything about those who pay taxes being the only ones that get a vote.

Plus poor people do pay taxes and all.

Yes I'm talking about expanding the vote, not reducing it.

It's outrageous that you can live and work in a city for a decade and nut have a say in the mayor and city council elections.

 

[jamesinclair]

Wow if Obama takes down FIFA he might actually end his reign with a positive note.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It amazes me that the conservative propaganda against Obama has reached the teenage age. Ran across it on Instagram. I'm not gonna quote out of respect for the individual but it was mind boggling for their age.


Paraphrasing: "Insist they are not a racist but Obama hasn't given out his birth certificate, Obamacare so the poor don't have to pay, illegal immigration, abortion"

 

[B-Dubs]

Wow if Obama takes down FIFA he might actually end his reign with a positive note.

Obama is saving international soccer, goddamn.

 

[Oblivion]

Obama is saving international soccer, goddamn.

As if Republicans didn't hate him enough already.

 

[sc0la]

Felony disenfranchisement is an abomination and an abortion of justice, it's a fucking shame that only two states do not engage in that fuckery.

I always knew you were good people, Chichikov. 👍

 

[Jooney]

The shocking news that FIFA officials have just been arrested on decades-long corruption, fraud, racketeering and money laundering charges have had me dive off my chair, roll along the floor, grab my knee wincing in pain, and bring the smooth operation of the office grinding to a halt.

But now I’m ok, guys. Now I'm ok.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

As if Republicans didn't hate him enough already.

Well in this case he would be standing up to Muslims, so that would be a good thing in their eyes...but they'll twist it to be bad somehow.

 

[Diablos]

Would have been nice if the person who wrote the fucking bill voted for the fucking bill

Amazing, isn't it? The way she talks about it signals a defense of the law... but she still would not vote for it? How absurd.

I'm preparing for the worst. A couple weeks ago I was feeling more confident, but now the GOP is coming out of the woods finally and offering some alternatives. They don't agree with each other, but the fact is that they are finally talking about it and they still have a month to go before they can officially back a specific bill/plan as a party. I'm not saying it will be easy for them, but this is what Roberts wants to see, I'd imagine -- and a ruling in favor of King could give the GOP the motivation to say they "fixed" the ACA by really killing it which is their ultimate wet dream short of impeaching Obama.

Pretty sure we'd have to do another census if they sided with the guys bringing the suit. From what I can tell they want districts to be based on the number of registered voters or citizens and not total population, which would shift power from urban areas to rural depending on how each state decides to break it up. It would affect stuff like House seats and state government, giving rural areas more representation and urban areas less.

What would this do for states like California? Would it be enough of a change to make the state legislature have a GOP majority for example?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

the desperation for the media to tie everything back to existing narratives of their own creation is sad though hilarious

Some how this fifa news has to do with clinton

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-gave-millions.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

FIFA donated to a charity? Qatar too? Its not like they've been doing this for decades!

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/socialresponsibility/footballforhope/index.html

http://www.qf.org.qa

The clintons need to push back on the idea that's taking hold that the clinton foundation is a political operation. Its a charity, which has given millions to projects all around the world. Its not a PAC

I always knew you were good people, Chichikov. ��

He's good people except his horrible taste in video games

 

[Diablos]

How tragic it would be if the almighty, inevitable Clinton empire actually crashed and burned over this stuff.

Tragic for the country at least, since that would give a huge confidence boost to the GOP voting bloc as Democrats literally have NO ONE BUT HILLARY.
Anyone else thinking this is a terrible strategy? They have no contingency plan if Hillary somehow fucks up.

Biden, O'Malley, Warren, and Sanders are the alternatives. None of them are Presidential material. Well, Biden is but he's 5 years older than Hillary...

The GOP, on the other hand, has a fucking circus of candidates. Talk about going from one extreme to another.

 

[HylianTom]

I really do wish that the Dems had a backup plan, but it looks like we're stuck here. Thankfully, a lot of her impressions are baked-in from the decades of GOP pursuit. And she still has Bill to buoy her numbers slightly. I'd still much rather be in the Dems' seat going into next year.

And here's a large part why:

Republicans’ 2016 math problem, explained in two charts

It's easy to overthink elections. I do it all the time. But at its most basic level, demographics tend to be political destiny. And that's why Dan Balz's column over the weekend, which details the difficult demographic realities facing the Republican Party in 2016 (and beyond), is so important.

Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Obama, tweeted out this key passage from Dan's piece Sunday night:

Mr Pfeiffer's confidence seems to mirror my own. This article is pretty much a restatement of what we already know here, and doesn't even touch on the possibility that Hillary will likely do slightly better than Obama did among white voters - not to mention female voters.

 

[Macho Madness]

Santy officially running

 

[NeoXChaos]

I really do wish that the Dems had a backup plan, but it looks like we're stuck here. Thankfully, a lot of her impressions are baked-in from the decades of GOP pursuit. And she still has Bill to buoy her numbers slightly. I'd still much rather be in the Dems' seat going into next year.

And here's a large part why:


Mr Pfeiffer's confidence seems to mirror my own. This article is pretty much a restatement of what we already know here, and doesn't even touch on the possibility that Hillary will likely do slightly better than Obama did among white voters - not to mention female voters.

Yup

The problem for Republicans, though, is that the presidential electorates don't stay static. The 2016 electorate, demographically speaking, will be worse for Republicans than 2012. And unless Republicans can begin winning more of the nonwhite vote, the 2020 election will be worse for the party than the 2016 election. And 2024 will be worse than, well, you get the idea.

 

[jamesinclair]

How tragic it would be if the almighty, inevitable Clinton empire actually crashed and burned over this stuff.

You wont find me shedding a tear.

 

[NeoXChaos]

How tragic it would be if the almighty, inevitable Clinton empire actually crashed and burned over this stuff.

Tragic for the country at least, since that would give a huge confidence boost to the GOP voting bloc as Democrats literally have NO ONE BUT HILLARY.
Anyone else thinking this is a terrible strategy? They have no contingency plan if Hillary somehow fucks up.

Biden, O'Malley, Warren, and Sanders are the alternatives. None of them are Presidential material. Well, Biden is but he's 5 years older than Hillary...

The GOP, on the other hand, has a fucking circus of candidates. Talk about going from one extreme to another.

We are the incumbent party. We also didn't do well in two midterms. Its sucks but that is the reality.

 

[sc0la]

He's good people except his horrible taste in video games

Bah, this is neogaf, the best posters haven't even played a video game in years.

 

[RustyNails]

Bah, this is neogaf, the best posters haven't even played Pokemon.

Fixed.

 

[ivysaur12]

This pretty much mirrors what happened with King:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/27/the-gops-next-big-cause/

The next King v. Burwell is on its way. I don’t mean another court case that could undermine the Affordable Care Act. I mean a case that follows this pattern:

First, a conservative advocate comes up with a novel legal theory, one few people had considered before, to accomplish a Republican goal. Though it flies in the face of either logic, history, and common sense (as is the case in King) or settled precedent (as in this case), Republicans everywhere quickly realize its potential and embrace it wholeheartedly, no matter how many silly arguments they might have to make along the way. And in the end, five conservative justices on the Supreme Court might or might not give the GOP a huge and unexpected victory.

The analogy with King v. Burwell isn’t perfect, because that was a completely new issue, while this question has come before the courts from time to time. But most people who aren’t redistricting law experts have probably never even considered whether you could exclude children and immigrants from counting population in order to determine legislative districts.

But I promise you: before long, every Republican is going to decide that they firmly believe, as the most fundamental expression of their commitment to democracy and the vision of the Founding Fathers, that only eligible voters should count when tallying population to determine district lines.

One thing to watch out for as this plays out is the role of the conservative media. If I’m right, very soon you’re going to see Fox News hosts and radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh doing segments on this case, in effect instructing conservatives on what’s at stake and how they should think about the issue. That consistent drumbeat won’t only affect the conservative leaders and rank-and-file, it could even affect the Supreme Court justices, who will hear the arguments being made in the media in support of these plaintiffs. After a while, a legal theory that sounded absurd will begin to seem at the very least to be mainstream. In short order, there will be universal agreement on the right. And it could have a real impact on political power even if the plaintiffs lose.

That’s because the Supreme Court could rule a few different ways. They could hold that states must use total population. Or they could do what the plaintiffs ask, which is to require states to use only the number of eligible voters. Or they could maintain the status quo, which is that states can choose whatever method they like in determining population. If that’s the route they take (which would be in line with prior cases), it would open the door for a state-by-state Republican effort to change redistricting laws.

As it happens, the defendant in this case is the state of Texas, which wants to keep its current system. Let’s say the Court rules that things should stay as they are. That would allow states to use only eligible voters in counting population; it just happens that no state has done that before now. By the time the ruling comes down, however, Republicans will have woken up to the fact that here is a handy way to increase their power by diluting the representation of areas with large immigrant populations. If you had a state with a lot of immigrants but which was ruled by Republicans — like, just to pull an example at random, Texas — changing the way population is counted will suddenly seem like an urgent priority. Other states with large immigrant populations where Republicans are in charge, like Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, could get on board as well.

While this case only concerns state legislative districts, as law professor Rick Hasen writes, “you can bet that if the challengers are successful in this case, they will argue for the same principle to be applied to the drawing of national congressional districts.”

It’s too early to tell how the Supreme Court might rule, though most legal observers were surprised they decided to hear the case at all. If Democrats are smart, they’ll make the (perfectly true) argument that this is a naked attempt to take representation away from areas where there are lots of Latinos. That might give Republicans pause in trying to pursue this change if the Court allows it.

On the other hand, when faced with a choice between pleasing their base and enhancing their power on the one hand, and avoiding alienating Latinos on the other, Republicans always chosen the first. That could make this just one more way that Republicans manage to entrench themselves at the state level while making it exceedingly difficult for them to win another presidential election in the near future.

This could really put a damper on any movement at the state level for Democratic in-road in North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Arizona, or Georgia... or at least, push the inevitable down the road.

EDIT: Also, TPM, shut up:

 

[jamesinclair]

Seriously guys, this FIFA thing is huge.

It might make the Nobel Peace Prize correct after all.

And to think, the GOP held up Lynch for HOW long?