Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court poised to eliminate race-based gerrymandering
YouTube ^ | 8/2/2025 | Dr. Steve Turley

Posted on 08/02/2025 11:48:09 AM PDT by Eccl 10:2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: Eccl 10:2
"What if I told you that the Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell that is about to obliterate the Democrat party's chances of ever coming back to national power again?"

I'd say that's wishful thinking while hoping to be wrong.

41 posted on 08/02/2025 6:15:13 PM PDT by libertylover (The HBM (Has Been Media) is almost all AGENDA-DRIVEN, not-truth driven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zathras

IT SHOULDA NEVER BE ABLE TO EXIST!!!!


42 posted on 08/02/2025 7:10:01 PM PDT by bantam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

I’ll believe it when the ruling comes out, until then.... it’s hopeium.

This and counting illegals could help turn things around to the better.


43 posted on 08/02/2025 7:17:26 PM PDT by Oil Object Insp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
At Atwater’s urging, Republicans in the states supported the dems on the black supermajority districts. This obviously conceded those seats to the dems, but Atwater calculated that it would also bleach out surrounding urban and suburban districts. Atwater realized the potential for putting these seats within reach for the GOP and figured that the gain would more than offset the loss.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to remember this. I remember the discussion that two white Democrat districts could be shifted into one black Democrat districts and the Democrat Party would be trapped into not opposing it.

Ohio was shockingly gerrymandered after the 2010 census. A 56 R - 43 D vote split turned into a 12-4 seat split in 2020. One district famously ran from Toledo to Cleveland to gather Dems from both cities together. A state constitutional amendment was passed to reduce gerrymandering by simplifying and reducing the perimeter of districts. That resulted in about the same 57 R - 43 D split, but a 10 - 5 seat split (lost one due to the census). Even that districting was disapproved by the state supreme court, but the clock ran out on fixing it to their satisfaction.

44 posted on 08/02/2025 7:46:58 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (I refuse to call the left "progressive" because I do not see slavery to the government as progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

Finally! (I hope)


45 posted on 08/03/2025 5:35:01 AM PDT by Salman (It's not a slippery slope if it was part of the program all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2
Holy cow!! I never knew that Majority-Minority districts even existed to now. There's got to be about 70 of them between blacks, hispanics, and asians and they're ALL democrat. What a total electoral scam! Look at them all here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_majority-minority_United_States_congressional_districts
46 posted on 08/03/2025 8:01:16 AM PDT by know.your.why
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

Great Society Medicaid and Medicare remain.
FDR ‘s Social Security Ponzi scheme

These relics of the past must be addressed for a future US that is not a joke.


47 posted on 08/03/2025 8:07:14 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Wrong. There is no disagreement about the meaning of “person”. The issue boils down to the phrase
“subject to the laws thereof”. Have illegals made themselves not subject to the laws?

For the first 150 years of the USA there were no meaningful immigration laws except for exclusion of Chinese. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. My ancestors did not ask for, nor receive, permission to come here. Yours too, probably. It is relatively recently that we created this very complex and idiotic immigration system. But there is no serious attempt to fix it.

John Mcain’s Gang of 8 did not benefit immigrant wannabes. It did not benefit those of us already here. It only benefited immigration attorneys.


48 posted on 08/03/2025 8:16:24 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob

Constitutionally, healthcare and “social security” are up to the people and their states, not the feds.

Federal meddling in healthcare and “social security” (SS) is patently unconstitutional and should be dismantled. But federal SS will have to slowly ramp down since the feds owe SS to people who have paid SS taxes.


49 posted on 08/03/2025 8:18:45 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Wrong. There is no disagreement about the meaning of “person”. The issue boils down to the phrase “subject to the laws jurisdiction thereof”.

Try getting your quotes correct before chastising somebody with ignorant blather.

50 posted on 08/03/2025 8:25:06 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

By misquoting I get you to focus not on the meaning of “person”; but on “law” vs “jurisdiction thereof” which strengthens my point.


51 posted on 08/03/2025 8:37:42 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

Can’t wait to see kimoji’s dissent


52 posted on 08/03/2025 8:41:58 AM PDT by Palio di Siena (Kralik…..you get the wallet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

The 17th Amendment was ratified because wanna be Senators were openly buying their Senate seats and the people were unhappy about it.


53 posted on 08/05/2025 8:23:37 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bob Wills is still the king

I understand that the idea that it would be impossible to influence the election of Senators by taking it out of the the hands of the state legislators and into the hands of the public would make it harder to influence the result of Senate elections.

That didn’t turn out to be the case. Big money was still able to try to pick who would be a state’s Senator. But it completely changed the nature of American government. Instead of the Senate being a representative of state governments, it became another glorified House of Representatives. States lost their say in the operation of the federal government.

Why does the Constitution give the power to ratify treaties and appointments to Federal offices, including the Supreme Court? Originally this was to give state governments a say in what treaties were made and what officials and judges were confirmed. This is how the Founders visioned the relationship between the states and the federal government should be. This was all eliminated by having Senators elected by the people of the states rather than the state legislatures.


54 posted on 08/05/2025 9:43:52 PM PDT by hanamizu ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2

We need to look at deliberately giving their power cities so many seats and most areas get no representation. The Founding Fathers warned of it.


55 posted on 08/11/2025 7:46:52 AM PDT by WhiteHatBobby0701
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson