(12-07-2016 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending democrat. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

If elections were trending Democrat then why would the Democrats do this? I guess you meant to say trending Republican. The work load had been increasing significantly and the increase in Appeals Court judges did serve to relieve that overload. Agree or disagree?

It was a typo. I just fixed it.

Look, I never made an attempt to defend or promote the validity of McCrory potentially adding seats to the SC. I merely drew attention to the fact that not only is the action permissible, but democrats have expended the court (appeals court in that case) in the past. You brought up the workload of the appeals court, and while it had been increasing year over year during the 90's, it actually declined from 98-99 to 99-00.

gerrymandering is another example of their do as i say not as i did attitude

(12-07-2016 09:25 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending democrat. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

If elections were trending Democrat then why would the Democrats do this? I guess you meant to say trending Republican. The work load had been increasing significantly and the increase in Appeals Court judges did serve to relieve that overload. Agree or disagree?

It was a typo. I just fixed it.

Look, I never made an attempt to defend or promote the validity of McCrory potentially adding seats to the SC. I merely drew attention to the fact that not only is the action permissible, but democrats have expended the court (appeals court in that case) in the past. You brought up the workload of the appeals court, and while it had been increasing year over year during the 90's, it actually declined from 98-99 to 99-00.

gerrymandering is another example of their do as i say not as i did attitude

On the other hand the Republicans, while they were in the minority bitched and complained about it just like Democrats are now. They constantly said that if they were in power gerrymandering would end and fair, non-partisan, compact districts that didn't split counties would be created. Instead David Lewis and company went at it whole hog, creating much more gerrymandered districts (they had the data and computer programs to do it that the Democrats lacked earlier) than the Democrats even dreamed of creating in their hay day. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now is the time for cooler, more fair minded heads to prevail. A non-partisan committee needs to be created and using modern data and technology all the districts should be drawn up. This can be easily done. The Republicans have had their opportunity for revenge and they ran with it. They will have had ten years to flex their muscles and entrench themselves. But if they are wise they will realize just as the time of Democratic Party control faded away despite gerrymandering, the Republican Party's control will eventually do the same.

After the 2020 census lets wipe the slate clean and let the chips fall where they may. If the GOP proves to advance the policies that the people support they shouldn't need to rely on gerrymandering to continue to win contests. If the Democrats offer policies that the people favor instead, they should be able to unseat the established officeholders.

(12-07-2016 11:01 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:25 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending democrat. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

If elections were trending Democrat then why would the Democrats do this? I guess you meant to say trending Republican. The work load had been increasing significantly and the increase in Appeals Court judges did serve to relieve that overload. Agree or disagree?

It was a typo. I just fixed it.

Look, I never made an attempt to defend or promote the validity of McCrory potentially adding seats to the SC. I merely drew attention to the fact that not only is the action permissible, but democrats have expended the court (appeals court in that case) in the past. You brought up the workload of the appeals court, and while it had been increasing year over year during the 90's, it actually declined from 98-99 to 99-00.

gerrymandering is another example of their do as i say not as i did attitude

On the other hand the Republicans, while they were in the minority bitched and complained about it just like Democrats are now. They constantly said that if they were in power gerrymandering would end and fair, non-partisan, compact districts that didn't split counties would be created. Instead David Lewis and company went at it whole hog, creating much more gerrymandered districts (they had the data and computer programs to do it that the Democrats lacked earlier) than the Democrats even dreamed of creating in their hay day. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Now is the time for cooler, more fair minded heads to prevail. A non-partisan committee needs to be created and using modern data and technology all the districts should be drawn up. This can be easily done. The Republicans have had their opportunity for revenge and they ran with it. They will have had ten years to flex their muscles and entrench themselves. But if they are wise they will realize just as the time of Democratic Party control faded away despite gerrymandering, the Republican Party's control will eventually do the same.

After the 2020 census lets wipe the slate clean and let the chips fall where they may. If the GOP proves to advance the policies that the people support they shouldn't need to rely on gerrymandering to continue to win contests. If the Democrats offer policies that the people favor instead, they should be able to unseat the established officeholders.

i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

(12-07-2016 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

So you believe in violating federal law?

(12-07-2016 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

So you believe in violating federal law?

I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.

I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

(12-07-2016 04:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

So you believe in violating federal law?

I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.
I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

(12-07-2016 06:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

So you believe in violating federal law?

I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.
I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

I agree but the GOP did a number. No need to carve downtown Wilmington out of the rest of the 7th district like they originally did

(12-07-2016 09:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 06:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 11:03 AM)solohawks Wrote:  i was always against the GOP's extreme gerrymander.
be better than them and lead by example.

So you believe in violating federal law?

I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.
I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

I agree but the GOP did a number. No need to carve downtown Wilmington out of the rest of the 7th district like they originally did

You must have never seen the ketchup stain district that the Dems drew in 1990 for the new 12 th district.

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/depart.../ncsum.htm

It picked out the specific Gastonia neighborhood of Highland for inclusion.

(12-07-2016 10:49 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 06:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you believe in violating federal law?

I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.
I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

I agree but the GOP did a number. No need to carve downtown Wilmington out of the rest of the 7th district like they originally did

You must have never seen the ketchup stain district that the Dems drew in 1990 for the new 12 th district.

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/depart.../ncsum.htm

It picked out the specific Gastonia neighborhood of Highland for inclusion.

I was very young but I remember reading about it. Like I said both NC parties have taken it to the extreme. County lines should be the goal

(12-08-2016 06:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:49 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 06:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:40 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I understand that federal law requires some sense of gerrymandering in order to get those majority minority congressional districts. I dont like the law at all and I did think it was humorous that NC applied the law to the fullest measure and was penalized for it.
I would prefer county lines to be the boundries and avoiding zig zagging districts that have been created the past 30+ years.

But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

I agree but the GOP did a number. No need to carve downtown Wilmington out of the rest of the 7th district like they originally did

You must have never seen the ketchup stain district that the Dems drew in 1990 for the new 12 th district.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/depart.../ncsum.htm
It picked out the specific Gastonia neighborhood of Highland for inclusion.

I was very young but I remember reading about it. Like I said both NC parties have taken it to the extreme. County lines should be the goal

So you'd support a change to federal law?

I'd actually go for proportional representation, which addresses the issue a different way.

Saw where HRC was celebrating this. I guess she finally found something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-08-2016 06:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 10:49 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 06:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that violates federal law. And remember, you can't just gerrymander some of the districts. When you have a gerrymandered district, the districts around it can't help but be gerrymandered to some extent too. You can't have a few gerrymandered districts and the rest nice and neat. The geometry does not work.

I agree but the GOP did a number. No need to carve downtown Wilmington out of the rest of the 7th district like they originally did

You must have never seen the ketchup stain district that the Dems drew in 1990 for the new 12 th district.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/depart.../ncsum.htm
It picked out the specific Gastonia neighborhood of Highland for inclusion.

I was very young but I remember reading about it. Like I said both NC parties have taken it to the extreme. County lines should be the goal

So you'd support a change to federal law?

I'd actually go for proportional representation, which addresses the issue a different way.

Anything that forces unnatural geographical districts is unhealthy to our system.

Not a fan of proportional representation as each geographic area deserves representation. Also at the heart of our system we vote for the person not the party. The founding fathers may have been a little too idealistic in imagining a system without parties but I would oppose anything that requires us to vote officially for a party instead of a person

McCrory has called for a special session to address Hurricane Matthew, and the wildfires. Despite appeals from the council of state (Rs and Ds) to limit the session to these two emergency issues McCrory includes, any other issues the GA deems important to address. Given the GOP controlled General Assemblies' track record of surprise legislation, dark of night passage of bills, rush throughs and slight of hand I'd say there is about a 50% chance of something or somethings unexpectedly getting introduced and passed.

The most likely being the State Supreme Court packing. Another possibility is a reversal of the position packing that was passed when McCrory took office. Back in 13 they passed a law that drastically increased the patronage position in many key departments. The "serve at the pleasure" positions in one department went from 500 to 1,500, another from less than 100 to over 300. Don't be surprised if they don't revert back to the numbers pre-McCrory. That wouldn't be a bad thing unless it locks in these patronage employees. The only thing worse than a political hire is a political hire that you can't get rid of when their patron leaves office.

(12-06-2016 01:18 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  can you provide a link as to anyone of note who agrees that 2000 is a precedent for 2016? the only person who thinks that is you. no offense but you are just a random internet commentator whose opinion I don't value as the basis for something like this.

the only google result I found was a law school link saying it wasn't relevant.

how are they different, outside of being at different levels of the judicial system?

I hate to jump into the middle of a John v. 200 battle but..... the assumption has been made by 200 that this was a court packing effort by the Democrats back in 2000. I haven't seen any evidence to point to that. If I'm not mistaken the Appeals Court workload had been increasing rapidly and the increase in the number of judges was an effort to relieve that congestion. Bear in mind that the Appeals Court hears cases in groups of three. The Supreme Court does not. Adding judges to the State Supreme Court does not serve to reduce the backlog. That is the major difference here.

That wasn't the issue at all. The dems were worried about potentially losing the majority since elections had been trending Republican. It was a preemptive move ahead of the election. Only difference between then and now is that if McCrory does it, it will be after the election.

Democrats created three new seats on the Court of Appeals in the short session of 2000, not the Supreme Court. The seats were added because the court had seen a 30% increase in its caseload in just two years and the state was growing rapidly. They were also added as you point out, before the election of 2000, not after it. There was a controversy but it wasn’t around whether the increase was needed. The dispute was whether the new justices would have to stand for election in the next election, like the constitution stipulates, or could serve until 2004 like the bill stated. The court decided that they had to run on 2002, the next election cycle. You are promoting a false equivalency.