http://www.wral.com/judges-want-independ.../17053365/

Just wow

Wrong forum

My apologies. Please delete. I tried and it would not let me

(10-27-2017 10:29 AM)solohawks Wrote:  My apologies. Please delete. I tried and it would not let me

It happens. One of the mods will move it to the political forum.

Good read though.

$500 dollars an hour... I'll do it for $50

Robert Bork — the last Supreme Court nominee to get voted down on the floor of the US Senate — once served in a similar role when the Connecticut Legislature reached an impasse in its own redistricting. He was on the Yale Law faculty at the time (ca. 1971)

One of the legislative leaders met with Bork. Pointing to a huge road map on the wall, the man said to Bork “Professor, this is Connecticut.” Bork stared silently at the map for several seconds, stroked his beard, and puffed on his pipe. Finally he spoke. “It is for now.”

Nothing good for NC can come from this.

HFS....

shoot me now.....

So I read that the dems WANT race to be a main factor in redrawing districts, since the GOP redrew them WITHOUT observing racial data. You know, what we've been taught since elementary school, "don't see race, see people".

Big shocker there. Dems complain about gerrymandering, but their fix to perceived gerrymandering is actual gerrymandering.

(10-28-2017 12:38 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  So I read that the dems WANT race to be a main factor in redrawing districts, since the GOP redrew them WITHOUT observing racial data. You know, what we've been taught since elementary school, "don't see race, see people".

Big shocker there. Dems complain about gerrymandering, but their fix to perceived gerrymandering is actual gerrymandering.

their latest concoction....

(10-28-2017 12:38 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  So I read that the dems WANT race to be a main factor in redrawing districts, since the GOP redrew them WITHOUT observing racial data. You know, what we've been taught since elementary school, "don't see race, see people".

Big shocker there. Dems complain about gerrymandering, but their fix to perceived gerrymandering is actual gerrymandering.

Yup, and if they were to actually “ungerrymand” many of these districts in many of these states, minorities will LOSE representation.

If they aren’t drawn up specifically to drag far-flung areas together, they are way to diluted to win much of anything.

Careful what you wish for, you might just get it...

(10-27-2017 03:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Nothing good for NC can come from this.

The courts should, if they throw out the lines, require the state to come back with better ones, not first try to draw lines themselves.

Now maybe this guy is just a consultant to tell them what is possible. That's not clear. Although they should be hearing plenty of experts from the two sides.

This has been going on for a decade. I'm just ready for it get the supreme court

(10-28-2017 10:58 AM)solohawks Wrote:  This has been going on for a decade. I'm just ready for it get the supreme court

Texas went on for a long time. Democrats did the most excessive gerrymander in history in Texas in 1990. The court kept throwing it out and they kept coming back with more failed plans. I was in three different US representative districts in the 90s. In 2000 with a split state government, they couldn't agree on district lines so the courts drew them, with only minor modifications from the 1990s gerrymander. Finally when the Republicans got control of the state government, the legislature came up with lines in 2002 at the encouragement of Tom Delay. Democrats fought that in court, but repeatedly failed. In 2002, Texas had 17 Democrats and 15 Republican representatives in a state that hadn't elected a Democrat to statewide office in almost a decade. The Republicans had finally overcome the Democratic gerrymandering of state house and state senate seats to get a majority.