Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not without a Supreme Court shakeup (10+ / 0-)

    There's nothing about more recent redistricting that's really any different than in Vieth.  Assuming the two new liberals and two new conservatives since 2004 vote the same way as their predecessors, Kennedy is still the man in the middle here, and he'd vote the same way.

    It's the added twist of grafting state-wide electoral allocation onto a politically-gerrymandered legislative district that adds a new twist here.  Hard to say how Kennedy would vote on that, or even Roberts.  Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would be fine with the EV-rigging scheme, no doubt.

    •  We need to start with the DC Circuit Court (7+ / 0-)

      which often hears redistricting cases first. It currently has a 5-3 Republican advantage, but also has 3 vacancies and the pending retirement of it's chief judge, a Reagan appointee.

      Obama filling the bench would put a 7-4 Democratic advantage in place - and a much friendlier audience for redistricting appeals.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:45:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are those appointments subject to Senate approval? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mkor7, WheninRome, bear83, NM Ward Chair

        If so, rotsa ruck.  We'll be waiting until the cows jump over the moon, for Republican obstructionism is not going to stop.  Reid gave away the Democrats' opportunity to get all kinds of things approved and changed with a simple majority vote.

        That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

        by concernedamerican on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:59:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course they are (3+ / 0-)

          That's why Caitlin Halligan has been waiting since 2010 - delayed, stalled, filibustered, and delayed again.

          Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked confirmation of Caitlin J. Halligan, a prominent New York lawyer, to be a federal appeals court judge, raising the question of whether a political deal to prevent the filibuster of most judicial nominations has broken down.

          Democrats failed to pick up the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to break a filibuster of a confirmation vote for Ms. Halligan, a former New York State solicitor general. The vote to break the filibuster was 54 to 45 and was largely along party lines;

          Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

          by bear83 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 03:19:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But isn't one of the new, watered down filibuster (0+ / 0-)

            reform principles that non-appellate judicial nominations and those below cabinet level are not subject to the filibuster?  Or is that just a "gentlemen's agreement?"  If so, rotsa ruck.

            President Barack Hussein Obama!!

            by NM Ward Chair on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:42:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  They'd only be fine with it on one condition: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aspe4, notrouble

      They're be fine with it as long as it was a republican legislature in a blue state.  If the Dems managed to seize the Texas leg, it'd be a very different story...

    •  Dumb question but I'll ask anyway. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wednesday Bizzare

      Doesn't this violate separation of powers?? Basically with gerrymandered districts, if you win the House you win the Presidency. In short (and perhaps in the fog of non-scholarly musing) aren't the legislative and executive powers effectively merged given a two party system?

      Or am I just not getting something here?

      •  A good point, but I don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrSandman, seriously70

        The bill isn't making the Speaker of the House President, or any other legislator.  They're still separate branches, with separate powers.

        Who knows, though, maybe this could be fleshed out a bit.

        •  But "apportioning by congressional district" (0+ / 0-)

          sounds to me like the value of congressional votes and presidential votes become one in the same.

          I didn't mean to inply that I thought this bill would make any legislator President. I meant that the bill would equate the votes for the respective offices. Hence, the win the House win the Presidency thought.

          Sorry if I wasn't clear.

        •  The flesh is weak, the spirit strong. nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site