Mastodawn

The Supreme Court lets California use its new, Democratic-friendly congressional map

https://lemmy.world/post/42672760

The Supreme Court lets California use its new, Democratic-friendly congressional map - Lemmy.World

The Supreme Court is allowing California to use its new congressional map for this year’s midterm election, clearing the way for the state’s gerrymandered districts as Democrats and Republicans continue their fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives. The state’s voters approved the redistricting plan last year as a Democratic counterresponse to Texas’ new GOP-friendly map, which President Trump pushed for to help Republicans hold on to their narrow majority in the House. And in an unsigned order released Wednesday, the high court’s majority denied an emergency request by the California’s Republican Party to block the redistricting plan. The state’s GOP argued that the map violated the U.S. Constitution because its creation was mainly driven by race, not partisan politics. A lower federal court rejected that claim.

Tony Bark Feb 4

That’s one hell of an interesting twist.

Fuckfuckmyfuckingass Feb 4

I’m sure they have something worse up their sleeve, and this wasn’t worth the PR flak they’d catch.

Ep1cFac3pa1m Feb 4

Congratulations, you can use your maps!

On an unrelated note, your maps don’t matter, because we’re gonna let a pants-shitting child rapist cancel the elections as long as he says they’re “rigged.”

gAlienLifeform Feb 4

And even if he isn’t able to do that, just the simple fact that Republicans have dominated rural areas and have ton of states with almost zero population in their thrall means they have a lot more room to run up the scoreboard with map shenanigans. If gerrymandering is legal for everyone, that’s a net loss for the Dems.

Bronzebeard Feb 4

I’m sure they’ll use this to justify flipping the Texas decision

samus12345 Feb 4

I thought the Texas one was already permitted.

atzanteol Feb 4

Hey - maybe this shouldn’t be legal at all? Why is neither party proposing an amendment outlawing this?

red_green_black Feb 4

Amendments need 3/4 of the states to ratify. And good luck getting enough of the partisan controlled State governments to agree to that

“Oops we fucked democracy. Let’s do the bare minimum going forward.”

Ironfist79 Feb 4

Nice of them to “allow” it. I thought the states were responsible for their own elections?

The question was more about the constitutionality behind how the map was decided. Republicans were arguing it was about race which is unconstitutional. You can only gerrymander to make a one party state… Which like… Wtf?

Guy Ingonito Feb 4

The think the race thing is one of the newer amendments, and the baseline is ‘states can draw the maps however they want’ because that’s what they needed to say to get the states on board with being a country in the first place

Aka the supreme court couldnt figure out how to argue this without making themselves look even more like clowns OR they have a plan B.

Basic Glitch Feb 4

In guessing plan B. If California can use this democrat friendly slanted map then every other state can use whatever conservative slanted maps they draw up.

ILikeBoobies Feb 5

That’s plan A.

They were already using it, California did this to get those banned and failed.

Basic Glitch Feb 5

Is it really failing when you so often seem to wind up on the same team?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom doubles down on his criticism of the proposed billionaire wealth tax

The comment comes as billionaires in the state have made public their intent to relocate elsewhere in the wake of the tax’s proposal. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, tech investor David Sacks, and Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have all taken steps to leave.

At the same time, billionaires are dishing out piles of cash to fund a campaign against the ballot initiative. Thiel made his biggest political contribution in years, donating $3 million to a California business group leading the fight against the billionaire wealth tax.

Sometimes it feels like Trump was the response of a crazy abusive asshole (Thiel/Musk/broligarchs) who “tried to do things the nice way by giving you somebody like Gavin Newsome,” but since people didn’t want that he decided to show how crazy he can really be for a 4 years to wear you down the next time around (if you’re lucky enough to even get a next time around).

Then threatening this bullshit of “if you expect me to pay taxes, you’re going to regret it. I’m warning you… you’re going to be so sorry once I’m gone”

It’s like stop flapping your fucking gums and leave already you piece of shit, nobody wants you, and we’re already in the toilet with you here. America can do bad all by herself. At least then we won’t have to deal with your bullshit on top of everything else.

Anyway, long winded way of saying, I don’t trust Gavin Newsome anymore than I trust Peter Thiel. Fuck them both.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom doubles down on his criticism of the proposed billionaire wealth tax

The California governor said the wealth tax “actually will reduce investments” in education, child care, and public safety.

Fortune

ILikeBoobies Feb 5

Just because they’re on the same side doesn’t mean they aren’t greedy.

More Dems in office means more bribes for them.

Basic Glitch Feb 5

Like more bribes from the Dems or more Dems willing to accept bribes? Either way, that’s my point. It’s not really a Dems vs Republican problem when it comes to a Newsome Dem. vs. a Republican. It’s a problem of a bipartisan oligarchy seeking to destroy what’s left of a democracy.

You could argue it’s already been destroyed, but then that just leads back to the question of why bother wasting money on all the theatrics and big threats if they really are untouchable? Why would they need to make this campaign attacking a billionaire tax? Why would the supreme court need to give California the ok before giving the red states the same blessing?

ILikeBoobies Feb 6

More dems = more power = more bribes.

If Republicans can pass anything why bribe anyone else?

I think this is really dangerous, actually. SCOTUS is no implicitly (or on their way to) saying that severe and perverse gerrymandering, is okay

themaninblack Feb 5

Exactly. As much of a leftist as I am, redrawing electoral maps on the basis of party advantage disenfranchises voters. It is antidemocratic and ethically wrong. California, where I am a registered Democrat, really fucked up here.