Gerrymandering is the current hot button, but likely to burn out quickly. Like the phrase "due process" constantly regurgitated regarding deportation, with little understanding of actual immigration law, Gerrymandering is the new word of the summer. Many screaming have no idea, gerrymandering has existed for centuries. Nor do they realize, SCOTUS has already ruled the subject must be left to the States. Moreover, many Blue States are already as nearly heavily gerrymandered, as possible.
The real drama will arrive after the 2030 Census when 10-12 House seats leave Blue States for Red ones. While certainly a long shot, if SCOTUS should decide the number of people dwelling illegally in the US has reached such critical mass, they dilute the votes of US citizens, Blue States will really come unglued. If those dwelling illegally no longer count for apportionment purposes, Blue States would likely lose up to another 6 or more House seats, on top of the dozen lost due to declining Blue State populations. At that point, SCOTUS packing by Dems, becomes far more likely.
Ironically, such a ruling would likely end immigration as an issue. Those dwelling in the US illegally cost State's billions of dollars annually in healthcare and other local and State subsidies. If migrants are no longer counted for apportionment, many Blue States will quietly decide they have more important priorities than fighting deportations.
Packing the Court is comical to those old enough to recall the Warren Court. Under Warren, for nearly a decade and a half, SCOTUS spit out one ultra liberal ruling after another. The thought of packing SCOTUS was never even considered. Reps set about winning elections.
Packing SCOTUS is the real nuclear option. At that point, all bets are off. Certainly no violent Civil War, but a mess, to say the least.
When the government runs your life, it becomes very important to you who runs the government. American politics has become so polarized because you cannot trust the opposing party not to intrude on your freedom economically, socially and culturally. A government which considers most things none of their business would inspire much less political contention than what we have now, a regulatory state where everything not forbidden is compulsory.
While partisans are becoming more partisan the country is becoming more pox on both your houses independent/unaffiliated.
Starting the gerrymandering clock at 2010 is exceedingly disingenuous. The Democrats were masters at gerrymandering for much of the 20th century due to their legislative dominance. Once Republicans started gaining legislative seats/power they happily joined in. Non-partisans don’t particularly like gerrymandering which is why referendums to eliminate it do well, but view partisan complaints about the other party doing it as rank hypocrisy.
The idea that Fed-Soc SCOTUS justices are inserting their beliefs into their rulings is pure projection. If that were remotely true the Dobbs decision would have found an imaginary right to life in the Constitution rather than eliminating the imaginary right to abortion and returning the question to the voters. Also to that point the problem isn’t that SCOTUS is to deferential to Trump, it’s that Congress has ceded too much of its power to the Executive. This worked fine for Democrats when GOP presidents were small government guys who didn’t want to use it, while Democratic presidents took full advantage. It’s only become an issue for the left now that the GOP has been taken over by blue dog/Reagan Democrats who are more than happy to use it.
Having grown up in the fifties, it seems that almost all my life the liberals controlled the Supreme Court. I remember when the Republicans won the Senate in 2006 it was a very big deal. And when they also took the House, it was fo the first time since the last days of President Hoover.
There are a lot of conservative voices here aren't there? I kind of like the fact that people who seem to be on either side of the aisle politically can come here and be (mostly) respectful to each other. The authors also do a very good job of not demonizing the people who they disagree with politically.
Well, I just think that there should be mainly liberal voices on a site called "Liberal Patriot," but if everybody is happy with this being a website to discuss what is wrong with the Democratic Party, it's not my website. Maybe, though, they could change the name to something like "Destroy all Democrats," and someone else could found a website dedicated to the promoting principles of FDR, Truman, Johnson, Humphrey, Clinton and Obama that could be called the Liberal Patriot.
It's not using 'liberal' in the leftist sense, but in the broader sense of the word conveyed in political philosophy, signifying a support for individual freedoms and aversion to coercive political structures, tolerance of differing subcultures, and the orientation of governance around a rule of law, rather than 'personalist' rule by strongmen. It's also a reference to the 'liberal nationalist' school of thought of the 19th century, which stressed a belief in national unity of purpose and identity but was also opposed to xenophobia and anti-immigrant 'blood and soil' ideology. (It was also probably the philosophy truest to the American ideal)
But, yes, many people who are critical of Democrats congregate here--some from legitimately liberal perspectives, and some from the fairly illiberal perspective of Trumpism. (The latter I presume to revel in criticism of 'the enemy', because Trump is precisely the *opposite* of a liberal patriot)
Ok. There have been many definitions of “liberal” over the past 200 years but I assumed we agree that FDR, Humphrey and Obama count as liberals here. Is that true?
Game theory holds that tit for tat produces a least bad solution in cases of repeating conflicting interests. Remember that it can be used positively too
Your comments are well taken, but an observation and a slight correction: First, the Biden DOJ largely prompted the Texas redistricting, or at least opened the door to it, with its now-dropped lawsuit against its now-former maps (link below). Second, Senate Republicans, at least, have been steadfast and consistent in preserving the Senate's Rule XXII supermajority vote requirements, or "filibuster," at least for legislation (Supreme Court nominations, not so much). Then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) faced intense criticism from Trump in 2017 when he urged the GOP to eliminate the filibuster to advance his agenda. God bless Sen. McConnell. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-state-texas-challenge-statewide-redistricting-plans
Well, yes, let's get back to what Michael Baharaeen calls "the American experiment" because doing so may be the only way to stop, or at least slow, this dangerous anti-consititutional escalation by the two major parties. The Framers with their understandable contempt for a monarchy in particular and centralized unchecked authority in general gave us a constitutional blue print that vested most powers with the states, thus the people. From that political cauldron is born the stronger laboratory, the competition of ideas, capable of feeding and sustaining democratic (lower-case "d") self-government.
So on the matter of gerrymandering, a deeper dive into what the states have done to see fairness triumph over raw partisanship and political one-upmanship. In Indiana, for example, where I lived and worked for many years, legislators adopted rules for redrawing congressional districts after census population changes which placed a priority on respecting existing municipal, township, county and other legal geographic/political boundaries, with grounds for citizen appeal where those boundaries are flagrantly disrespected. I am certain there have been other states' efforts to adopt uniform rules to slow the partisan revamping of congressional districts that look more like rohrshock tests or paint splatter.
Democrats have probably been more skilled at gerrymandering if states' districting maps are the measure. But rather than making it the only measure, states' anti-gerrymandering efforts point the way to our better, more fair angels goIng forward. Let's go forward.
This division is inevitable, and necessary. At some point, when a party (DemoKKKrats) lose their love of country to replace it with love of woke ideology, there must be a battle, a war. Rush Limbaugh used to say this about Palestine, but I really think now he was using that as a proxy for what had to happen here.
Frankly, all this childish tit for tat and they are going to ruin the country is getting old fast. Mamdani should be the first step in the downfall of the Dems. The Repubs won't be far behind if they can control it all and implement whatever they want.
The sooner the two parties are destroyed, the better off this country will be. I pray for the screw ups that will bring us to the bottom of the barrel and pray we can recover before our country is destroyed. It seems to be the only path to salvation for the USA.
On Real Clear Politics podcast the other day someone (Carl?) said 'yes, we know you lost your reputation, you are financially ruined, and your family was destroyed because you were targeted by Biden FBI and DOJ. But hey, you need to take the high road now that you're in power.' Easy for him to say....
There is no high road at this time. I remember a character from the book Hawaii, the captain after every fight he won went and kicked the loser in face. When asked why, his reply was, so they would not forget who he was and never mess with him again.
Dems are not smart enough to realize they have no high road and Trump isn’t their problem. They are their own worse enemies.
I read some years ago that the Supreme Court decided that state senators could not represent an area of a state. Seems that it violates the one-man-one vote concept ((just as the Constitution itself does for our Feredal senators). Supposedly unconstitutional even though the same Constitotion sets up the very method for the Federal Government. Hmm... Also, the Supreme Court has not interefered with Gerrymandering, which has a direct effect of diluting votes.
Exactly why we need legislation that mandates redistricting to create the maximum number of competitive seats And we totally need to re-balance (not "pack") SCOTUS to reverse all the damage the Roberts Court has done, starting with Citizens United
Gerrymandering is the current hot button, but likely to burn out quickly. Like the phrase "due process" constantly regurgitated regarding deportation, with little understanding of actual immigration law, Gerrymandering is the new word of the summer. Many screaming have no idea, gerrymandering has existed for centuries. Nor do they realize, SCOTUS has already ruled the subject must be left to the States. Moreover, many Blue States are already as nearly heavily gerrymandered, as possible.
The real drama will arrive after the 2030 Census when 10-12 House seats leave Blue States for Red ones. While certainly a long shot, if SCOTUS should decide the number of people dwelling illegally in the US has reached such critical mass, they dilute the votes of US citizens, Blue States will really come unglued. If those dwelling illegally no longer count for apportionment purposes, Blue States would likely lose up to another 6 or more House seats, on top of the dozen lost due to declining Blue State populations. At that point, SCOTUS packing by Dems, becomes far more likely.
Ironically, such a ruling would likely end immigration as an issue. Those dwelling in the US illegally cost State's billions of dollars annually in healthcare and other local and State subsidies. If migrants are no longer counted for apportionment, many Blue States will quietly decide they have more important priorities than fighting deportations.
Packing the Court is comical to those old enough to recall the Warren Court. Under Warren, for nearly a decade and a half, SCOTUS spit out one ultra liberal ruling after another. The thought of packing SCOTUS was never even considered. Reps set about winning elections.
Packing SCOTUS is the real nuclear option. At that point, all bets are off. Certainly no violent Civil War, but a mess, to say the least.
When the government runs your life, it becomes very important to you who runs the government. American politics has become so polarized because you cannot trust the opposing party not to intrude on your freedom economically, socially and culturally. A government which considers most things none of their business would inspire much less political contention than what we have now, a regulatory state where everything not forbidden is compulsory.
While partisans are becoming more partisan the country is becoming more pox on both your houses independent/unaffiliated.
Starting the gerrymandering clock at 2010 is exceedingly disingenuous. The Democrats were masters at gerrymandering for much of the 20th century due to their legislative dominance. Once Republicans started gaining legislative seats/power they happily joined in. Non-partisans don’t particularly like gerrymandering which is why referendums to eliminate it do well, but view partisan complaints about the other party doing it as rank hypocrisy.
The idea that Fed-Soc SCOTUS justices are inserting their beliefs into their rulings is pure projection. If that were remotely true the Dobbs decision would have found an imaginary right to life in the Constitution rather than eliminating the imaginary right to abortion and returning the question to the voters. Also to that point the problem isn’t that SCOTUS is to deferential to Trump, it’s that Congress has ceded too much of its power to the Executive. This worked fine for Democrats when GOP presidents were small government guys who didn’t want to use it, while Democratic presidents took full advantage. It’s only become an issue for the left now that the GOP has been taken over by blue dog/Reagan Democrats who are more than happy to use it.
The pendulum is swinging back.
Having grown up in the fifties, it seems that almost all my life the liberals controlled the Supreme Court. I remember when the Republicans won the Senate in 2006 it was a very big deal. And when they also took the House, it was fo the first time since the last days of President Hoover.
As apparently one of the few Liberals now participating in Liberal Patriot, I can only write that everyone should just calm down.
There are a lot of conservative voices here aren't there? I kind of like the fact that people who seem to be on either side of the aisle politically can come here and be (mostly) respectful to each other. The authors also do a very good job of not demonizing the people who they disagree with politically.
Well, I just think that there should be mainly liberal voices on a site called "Liberal Patriot," but if everybody is happy with this being a website to discuss what is wrong with the Democratic Party, it's not my website. Maybe, though, they could change the name to something like "Destroy all Democrats," and someone else could found a website dedicated to the promoting principles of FDR, Truman, Johnson, Humphrey, Clinton and Obama that could be called the Liberal Patriot.
It's not using 'liberal' in the leftist sense, but in the broader sense of the word conveyed in political philosophy, signifying a support for individual freedoms and aversion to coercive political structures, tolerance of differing subcultures, and the orientation of governance around a rule of law, rather than 'personalist' rule by strongmen. It's also a reference to the 'liberal nationalist' school of thought of the 19th century, which stressed a belief in national unity of purpose and identity but was also opposed to xenophobia and anti-immigrant 'blood and soil' ideology. (It was also probably the philosophy truest to the American ideal)
But, yes, many people who are critical of Democrats congregate here--some from legitimately liberal perspectives, and some from the fairly illiberal perspective of Trumpism. (The latter I presume to revel in criticism of 'the enemy', because Trump is precisely the *opposite* of a liberal patriot)
Ok. There have been many definitions of “liberal” over the past 200 years but I assumed we agree that FDR, Humphrey and Obama count as liberals here. Is that true?
Game theory holds that tit for tat produces a least bad solution in cases of repeating conflicting interests. Remember that it can be used positively too
Your comments are well taken, but an observation and a slight correction: First, the Biden DOJ largely prompted the Texas redistricting, or at least opened the door to it, with its now-dropped lawsuit against its now-former maps (link below). Second, Senate Republicans, at least, have been steadfast and consistent in preserving the Senate's Rule XXII supermajority vote requirements, or "filibuster," at least for legislation (Supreme Court nominations, not so much). Then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) faced intense criticism from Trump in 2017 when he urged the GOP to eliminate the filibuster to advance his agenda. God bless Sen. McConnell. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-state-texas-challenge-statewide-redistricting-plans
Well, yes, let's get back to what Michael Baharaeen calls "the American experiment" because doing so may be the only way to stop, or at least slow, this dangerous anti-consititutional escalation by the two major parties. The Framers with their understandable contempt for a monarchy in particular and centralized unchecked authority in general gave us a constitutional blue print that vested most powers with the states, thus the people. From that political cauldron is born the stronger laboratory, the competition of ideas, capable of feeding and sustaining democratic (lower-case "d") self-government.
So on the matter of gerrymandering, a deeper dive into what the states have done to see fairness triumph over raw partisanship and political one-upmanship. In Indiana, for example, where I lived and worked for many years, legislators adopted rules for redrawing congressional districts after census population changes which placed a priority on respecting existing municipal, township, county and other legal geographic/political boundaries, with grounds for citizen appeal where those boundaries are flagrantly disrespected. I am certain there have been other states' efforts to adopt uniform rules to slow the partisan revamping of congressional districts that look more like rohrshock tests or paint splatter.
Democrats have probably been more skilled at gerrymandering if states' districting maps are the measure. But rather than making it the only measure, states' anti-gerrymandering efforts point the way to our better, more fair angels goIng forward. Let's go forward.
The pendulum always seems to swing which in some ways is good, someways bad. And both parties are hypocritical at times
I do not understand however why illegals get counted in the census and their numbers used to justify voter representation?
This division is inevitable, and necessary. At some point, when a party (DemoKKKrats) lose their love of country to replace it with love of woke ideology, there must be a battle, a war. Rush Limbaugh used to say this about Palestine, but I really think now he was using that as a proxy for what had to happen here.
One side must win, decisively.
Frankly, all this childish tit for tat and they are going to ruin the country is getting old fast. Mamdani should be the first step in the downfall of the Dems. The Repubs won't be far behind if they can control it all and implement whatever they want.
The sooner the two parties are destroyed, the better off this country will be. I pray for the screw ups that will bring us to the bottom of the barrel and pray we can recover before our country is destroyed. It seems to be the only path to salvation for the USA.
On Real Clear Politics podcast the other day someone (Carl?) said 'yes, we know you lost your reputation, you are financially ruined, and your family was destroyed because you were targeted by Biden FBI and DOJ. But hey, you need to take the high road now that you're in power.' Easy for him to say....
There is no high road at this time. I remember a character from the book Hawaii, the captain after every fight he won went and kicked the loser in face. When asked why, his reply was, so they would not forget who he was and never mess with him again.
Dems are not smart enough to realize they have no high road and Trump isn’t their problem. They are their own worse enemies.
I read some years ago that the Supreme Court decided that state senators could not represent an area of a state. Seems that it violates the one-man-one vote concept ((just as the Constitution itself does for our Feredal senators). Supposedly unconstitutional even though the same Constitotion sets up the very method for the Federal Government. Hmm... Also, the Supreme Court has not interefered with Gerrymandering, which has a direct effect of diluting votes.
Do we still believe we can govern ourselves?
Exactly why we need legislation that mandates redistricting to create the maximum number of competitive seats And we totally need to re-balance (not "pack") SCOTUS to reverse all the damage the Roberts Court has done, starting with Citizens United
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/