….looks like the ‘opposition’ has fled the proverbial field.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Where you say, “WITHIN STATES, brainiac. Equal sized legislative districts WITHIN STATES.”

If we apply that logic at the federal level, then we’d have to do as I described with New York vs. Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah and New Mexico. Ten US Senators for New York and one for those others.

So, why not say, what’s good for the geese, i.e., the states, is good for the gander, the nation?

Or, looking at it from the other perspective, if it’s good at the federal level…why isn’t it good at the state level.

Got an answer for that? Or are you just going to sit there and start spewing tripe again?

Typical. All too typical. Name calling as opposed to cogent discussion.

But thanks for confirming my initial impression that it was over Baker v. Carr that these people were howling that Alito wanted to reverse the Warren Supreme Court on ‘civil rights’.

The point still stands that the decision destroyed the balance of power between metropolitan and rural areas. That, despite, your attempt to change the subject from the merits of the decision to mere name-calling.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Are you a lawyer? I ask this because you’re applying the third option of the Lawyers’ Rule:

[1] When the law is against you, argue the facts.
[2] When the facts are against you, argue the law.
[3] When the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

I honestly thought I was dealing with a sane person. Sorry I was mistaken.

WITHIN STATES, brainiac. Equal sized legislative districts WITHIN STATES.

Geesh.

Sorry for encouraging him, Maha. Serves me right for trying to be helpful.

Pelto, you ignorant gasbag.

“The only explanation I’ve found so far is that he thought that an _absolute_ equality of population of voting districts was too much.” — JS Narins

It IS too much. Or do you think that New York and California alone should hold the proponderance of legislative power in our government? If so, let’s do away with the US Senate and save the tax payers a shit-load of money.

Of course, the logical ultimate conclusion is that we all move to either of those two states if we want ANY influence in the government. Just like anyone living in Colorado, as the situation exists now, should sell their homes and farms and move to an appartment in Denver; joining the rat-race I got away from three years ago. [Note: My blood-pressure went down by 20 points.]

If all legistlative authority, i.e., the ability to make laws, appropriate funding to activities, is vested in only the most populous regions of the land, only those who live there will have any influence.

In Colorado, we’ve got a situation, at the state-level, where a senator represents five ’state’. Consider how that would affect things at the national level. What would it be like if New York had 10 Senator and Iowa, Wisconsin, Alabama, Utah and New Mexico had to share 1.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. You may have doubts of Alito’s veracity in this matter, but I, for one, welcome the idea that someone else has seen the danger of the Baker v. Carr decision of the Warrne Supreme Court.

What troubles me most about the push-back is that they are playing the race card on this, claiming Alito is opposed to civil rights when THIS decision is the focal point.

Earl Warren and the Supremes could have easily dealt with the issue of gerimandering using a known precedent as opposed to destroying the constitution of every state in the Union, less Nebraska.

These are, you agree, the Reagan “I do not recall” Republicans.

Questioner: Did you join a group to push women and blacks out of Princeton?
Alito: I don’t recall why I joined. I don’t recall joining a group like that.

It’d be considered contempt of court in other circles.

I listened to gavel-to-gavel, and I thought everyone was pretty decent. I’m afraid Schumer’s 2nd-day tack, that he took contrary non-positions (agreeing to speak on X, but not Y) was great, but he didn’t dumb it down enough.

Anyway, there’s a major change underway in the Democrats, that much is obvious. There was a certain complacency (at least on my part) during the 1990s. I was busy trying to live a life, and thinking (naively) that President Clinton was taking care of business. He prevented further erosion (in some ways) but he didn’t advance much.

–

Pelto,

yeah, Baker V Carr. The only explanation I’ve found so far is that he thought that an _absolute_ equality of population of voting districts was too much. I doubt that’s really the case, but if I’m not mistaken, that’s what he said.

I’ve found the answer. It IS Baker v. Carr.

For the uninformed, this was probably the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court, as far as I can tell.

Why?

Because it overthrew the constitution of every state in the Union, less Nebraska.

How?

By making the state senate nothing more than a glorified state house of representatives and destroying the balance of power between metroplitan and rural areas at the state level. The same balance of power between heavily populated states and less so we call The Great Compromise at the federal level.

The affects were slow to realize. But we are seeing them here in Colorado, today. Here, where water is a precious commodaty, we are watching Denver suck up every drop it can get, to the detriment of everyplace else in the state.

They do this by controlling both houses of our state legislature.

This ruling, which could easily have been addressed by merely telling the states to redistrict their voting, is probably the greatest threat to society ever imposed by activist judges. It should be reconsidered and subsequently reversed in order for the people to enjoy at the state level the balance of power we know to work at the federal.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

There is an article in my local paper about Alito disagreeing with some Warren Supreme Court decision regarding ‘civil rights’ in the 60s.

I’m trying to determine WHICH decision they’re referring to.

Anybody got an answer? Was it Baker v. Carr (‘61)?

Regards,

Chuck(le)