https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--7cm0wVvhcBob78164 wrote:
It's not paranoia when the facts demonstrate they really are out to get you. --Bob
Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--7cm0wVvhcBob78164 wrote:
It's not paranoia when the facts demonstrate they really are out to get you. --Bob
I wish someone would take them to court over not have any (or very few with long lines) polling places in the poorest areas.jarnon wrote:North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered
At first glance, this looks like a repeat of the 2016 story, but this case is about the voting map, not voting law. But it's the same legislature, with the same ultimate goal, being blasted by the same judges. No doubt it will be appealed, and the Supreme Court is already hearing gerrymandering cases from other states.
Here's the latest (on a free website):jarnon wrote:North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered
At first glance, this looks like a repeat of the 2016 story, but this case is about the voting map, not voting law. But it's the same legislature, with the same ultimate goal, being blasted by the same judges. No doubt it will be appealed, and the Supreme Court is already hearing gerrymandering cases from other states.
The difference is that this time the court struck the redistricting down as a political gerrymander rather than a racial one, meaning that it's less likely to stand up, especially considering the likely makeup of the Supreme Court.jarnon wrote:Here's the latest (on a free website):jarnon wrote:North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered
At first glance, this looks like a repeat of the 2016 story, but this case is about the voting map, not voting law. But it's the same legislature, with the same ultimate goal, being blasted by the same judges. No doubt it will be appealed, and the Supreme Court is already hearing gerrymandering cases from other states.
Federal judges again rule North Carolina Congressional map unconstitutional
The key issue forming the basis of the remand was standing in each district. The Court found standing. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:The difference is that this time the court struck the redistricting down as a political gerrymander rather than a racial one, meaning that it's less likely to stand up, especially considering the likely makeup of the Supreme Court.jarnon wrote:Here's the latest (on a free website):jarnon wrote:North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered
At first glance, this looks like a repeat of the 2016 story, but this case is about the voting map, not voting law. But it's the same legislature, with the same ultimate goal, being blasted by the same judges. No doubt it will be appealed, and the Supreme Court is already hearing gerrymandering cases from other states.
Federal judges again rule North Carolina Congressional map unconstitutional
Standing is a stopgap; assuming this gets appealed to the Supreme Court, they are free to reach the central issue of whether political gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Interestingly, the three member court unanimously found that the new NC map violated equal protection, but two of the three also said that it violated the free speech rights of Democrats.Bob78164 wrote:The key issue forming the basis of the remand was standing in each district. The Court found standing. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:The difference is that this time the court struck the redistricting down as a political gerrymander rather than a racial one, meaning that it's less likely to stand up, especially considering the likely makeup of the Supreme Court.jarnon wrote:Here's the latest (on a free website):
Federal judges again rule North Carolina Congressional map unconstitutional
Kavanaugh is a racist, right? If he gets on the court, he'll put all the black folk back in chains, like Joe said. No dem votes for him. Not one. The big question is will that be enough.Bob78164 wrote:This right here is another reason Republicans will be in a hurry to get Kavanaugh on the Court. They'll want his vote to stay the ruling so the gerrymandered districts stay in place for 2018. --Bob
Flock, I didn't think it was possible but your posts are less amusing than Donald Trump's tweets.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Kavanaugh is a racist, right? If he gets on the court, he'll put all the black folk back in chains, like Joe said. No dem votes for him. Not one. The big question is will that be enough.Bob78164 wrote:This right here is another reason Republicans will be in a hurry to get Kavanaugh on the Court. They'll want his vote to stay the ruling so the gerrymandered districts stay in place for 2018. --Bob
When the dems get control of congress, we'll have a genuine utopia!!!!!!
I'm not aiming to amuse you.silverscreenselect wrote:Flock, I didn't think it was possible but your posts are less amusing than Donald Trump's tweets.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Kavanaugh is a racist, right? If he gets on the court, he'll put all the black folk back in chains, like Joe said. No dem votes for him. Not one. The big question is will that be enough.Bob78164 wrote:This right here is another reason Republicans will be in a hurry to get Kavanaugh on the Court. They'll want his vote to stay the ruling so the gerrymandered districts stay in place for 2018. --Bob
When the dems get control of congress, we'll have a genuine utopia!!!!!!
Well, a good rule of thumb is that the more lame attempts at humor you make in a post, the more it indicates that you really have no valid response to, in this case, the points that Bob made, so you wave your arms and make a lot of noise and hope the whole issue goes away.silverscreenselect wrote:I'm not aiming to amuse you.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Flock, I didn't think it was possible but your posts are less amusing than Donald Trump's tweets.
You have just proven my point for me. You don't read what I post anyway. It's Groundhog Day.silverscreenselect wrote:Well, a good rule of thumb is that the more lame attempts at humor you make in a post, the more it indicates that you really have no valid response to, in this case, the points that Bob made, so you wave your arms and make a lot of noise and hope the whole issue goes away.silverscreenselect wrote:I'm not aiming to amuse you.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Flock, I didn't think it was possible but your posts are less amusing than Donald Trump's tweets.
Do you not see your problem here?silverscreenselect wrote:Well, a good rule of thumb is that the more lame attempts at humor you make in a post, the more it indicates that you really have no valid response to, in this case, the points that Bob made, so you wave your arms and make a lot of noise and hope the whole issue goes away.silverscreenselect wrote:I'm not aiming to amuse you.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Flock, I didn't think it was possible but your posts are less amusing than Donald Trump's tweets.
Do you see yours?Estonut wrote:Do you not see your problem here?silverscreenselect wrote:Well, a good rule of thumb is that the more lame attempts at humor you make in a post, the more it indicates that you really have no valid response to, in this case, the points that Bob made, so you wave your arms and make a lot of noise and hope the whole issue goes away.silverscreenselect wrote:I'm not aiming to amuse you.
Next Tuesday is the special election in the 9th North Carolina district, which has been vacant since the last results were thrown out due to improprieties by official connected with the Republican campaign. Democrat Dan McCready (who was the Democratic candidate in 2018) is running against a different Republican this time, Dan Bishop, the State Senator who sponsored the "bathroom bill." The race is considered a tossup. In addition, there is a special election in the 3rd disctrict to replace longtime representative Walter Jones, who died a few months back. That district is considered safely Republican.Bob78164 wrote:Resting its 357-page decision entirely on state constitutional grounds, and expressly determining that the issue is justiciable on those grounds in state court, a three-judge panel in North Carolina has unanimously ruled that its legislative lines constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and cannot be used for the 2020 elections. The court also has refused to stay its decision pending appeal. --Bob
The press has fixated on how the impeachment votes are going to affect "vulnerable" Democrats without a mention of how this may play out for Republicans. I'm sure voters in Colorado and Maine will remember how Cory Gardner and Susan Collins conduct themselves during this trial.
The deadline for filing for the 2020 election in North Carolina is tomorrow, which means that potential Republican successors will not have much time to meet the requirements (Meadows had not yet filed for re-election). He says that he may resign earlier, which would result in a special election for the remainder of his term, but the winner of that election would not automatically be on the ballot for a new term.
George Holding announced he's not seeking reelection last week for the same reason.
Another follow-up on the Meadows situation. The deadline for filing is noon today. Also, nobody who is running for another office can file (which makes sense). In most cases, a person removes his or her name from the list for one office before filing for another. EXCEPT, the deadline for doing that was Tuesday. So, any Republicans already on the ballot anywhere in the State of North Carolina can't run (for the regular term) and anyone else only has a couple of hours left to do so. Of course, there will be a special election for the rest of Meadows' term if he resigns early instead of merely retiring and there would be separate qualifying for that.silverscreenselect wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 11:05 amThe deadline for filing for the 2020 election in North Carolina is tomorrow, which means that potential Republican successors will not have much time to meet the requirements (Meadows had not yet filed for re-election). He says that he may resign earlier, which would result in a special election for the remainder of his term, but the winner of that election would not automatically be on the ballot for a new term.