Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
abelard said:
Not getting much coverage compared to his Twitter feed, but the Supreme Court hearings just now are very important.

The ability of the United States to meaningfully express itself on Trump or to avoid de facto one party rule will likely hinge on the misfiring and unpredictable elderly synapses of Anthony Kennedy, similar to how the fortuitous lodging of an errant fatberg of abdominal gristle in Scalia's beleaguered grease-choked veins gave labour unions in America a fleeting stay of execution.

At issue is partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, where in 2012 the Democrats won a majority of votes for the legislature, but thanks to redistricting, the Republicans won two-thirds of the seats.

Yes, that's correct. The Democrats won a majority of the popular vote, but Republicans skewed the districts such that they took two-thirds of the seats.

Almost 50% of the districts are so lopsided that the opposition literally didn't bother.

And Wisconsin is hardly the only state that operates this way. It is even worse in Michigan: 51% of the vote for Democrats, 71% of the seats for the Republicans.

"A group of experts that rates the integrity of elections around the world say North Carolina can’t really be considered a democracy anymore. The state where the outgoing governor signed a law stripping his successor of certain powers scored 58/100 in the 2016 election, according to the Electoral Integrity Project, a joint effort between Harvard University and the University of Sydney. That places the state alongside the likes of Cuba, Indonesia and Sierra Leone.

“If it were a nation state, North Carolina would rank right in the middle of the global league table—a deeply flawed, partly-free, democracy that is only slightly ahead of the failed democracies that constitute much of the developing world,” writes Andrew Reynolds, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who is also an EIP adviser."

And of course, in the rare states where Democrats can do this, they do - Maryland, for example. It is wrong, and contemptible, in all cases.

It would be nice if, given how polarized the country is, we could at least agree to stage fair elections. But one party can no longer win fair elections, nor is it willing to change in order to do so, so we are left with what is effectively a slow motion coup d'etat (And of course, similar Republican machinations in appointing the Supreme Court are the only reason why this is even still in question). Do any conservatives care that the basic propriety of politics in the United States is being demonstrably attacked? Lol. One intrepid forumer here proclaimed his support, for President, of the architect of the debacle in Wisconsin, because of his "integrity." So "no," is the rhetorical answer.

There is some hope about Kennedy, who rejected an attempt by Republican Lawmakers in Arizona to sue (!) after voters decided to form an impartial committee to set the districts, like in a civilised country.

Yes, the Republicans in the Arizona assembly actually attempted to in effect sue their own constituents in order to preserve their ability to draw their own electoral districts.

Anyhow, I think this could well have far more damaging consequences than the latest breech of twitter etiquette.
Click to expand...

Good stuff, and equally or more important for the future of democracy than the on-going tragic events.

I'm not surprised that the party who has symbolically co-opted phrases like "freedom" and "patriot" and "American way" are the same ones who are knee-jerk against these concepts when it applies to poor people or people with brown skin or women or poor people or women or people with brown skin.

It's almost like a pro-life Republican telling his mistress to get an abortion.
 
roydo said:
They allowed to do that? Like just rewrite a law/right without any debate and vote in congress/senate?
Click to expand...
Unless the Supreme Court makes a ruling on a specific issue there can be wriggle room on how some laws are interpreted as there are often rulings from lower courts that can be contradictory/unclear. As far as am aware there isn't any Supreme court ruling dealing with transgender employment laws specifically.

So as head of Department of Justice it is up to Sessions to determine how DOJ are going to argue in court and it isn't uncommon for a change in the president to see the DOJ completely abandon or change which side of a case they are supporting as in this instance - just thoroughly depressing.

For instance there was this on voter roll purging, complete reversal between Obama DOJ and Trump DOJ
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...rses-position-ohio-voting-rights-case-n790846
 
Last edited:
The press have been trying to get informstion on visitors to Mar-a-Lago to see who the president is meeting and who has influence. Pretty standard request, Obama actually made White House logs public whilst redacting some of what it classed as sensitive meetings.


This is a downright lie, or if it isn't then the Secret Service has no idea who is around the president at any one time which sounds problematic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top