SCOTUS

[chrisrenrut]

That would eliminate gerrymandering and probably help to moderate a lot but I think the less-populous areas like having a congressperson representing their district alone since otherwise all the power would shift back to the population centers.

Part of the guidelines for creating voting districts is population equality. So lower population areas have to be combined with each other to equal more populous districts, or combined with more populous districts.

Utah’s gerrymandering efforts are using the second, since it will dilute the more populous and democratic areas with less populous and republican voters.

Texas gerrymandering is using the first. Trying to consolidate populous democratic districts to allow more less populous republican districts.

[Pelado]

Part of the guidelines for creating voting districts is population equality. So lower population areas have to be combined with each other to equal more populous districts, or combined with more populous districts.

Utah’s gerrymandering efforts are using the second, since it will dilute the more populous and democratic areas with less populous and republican voters.

Texas gerrymandering is using the first. Trying to consolidate populous democratic districts to allow more less populous republican districts.

My comment is not really about gerrymandering technique. Rather, I was attempting to answer the question of why people wouldn't want to get rid of congressional districts in favor of statewide elections.

[dabrockster]

Is there a happy medium. Require district in urban areas based on a population level have districts and less populated have their own district or no district but popular vote for those areas and not allow the urban areas to vote.

Maybe this is no different than it’s current state, but there has to be a path to remove gerrymandering. I do think what Ahnold did in California was the most equitable path and removed politicians completely.

[BlueK]

During Biden's presidency SCOTUS ruled against his administration multiple times and created something called the major questions doctrine as the rationale. For the tariffs case coming up we'll find out I guess if the hypocrisy comes through and decide if this new legal doctrine only applies to presidents the majority on the court don't like. The tariffs are absolutely a major question. I don't think the doctrine is even needed here to strike them down however. The statutes the administration is trying to use to justify them are a beyond absurd stretching of the original intent of Congress anyway.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...638e9953db2aeb

[falafel]

During Biden's presidency SCOTUS ruled against his administration multiple times and created something called the major questions doctrine as the rationale. For the tariffs case coming up we'll find out I guess if the hypocrisy comes through and decide if this new legal doctrine only applies to presidents the majority on the court don't like. The tariffs are absolutely a major question. I don't think the doctrine is even needed here to strike them down however. The statutes the administration is trying to use to justify them are a beyond absurd stretching of the original intent of Congress anyway.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...638e9953db2aeb

The article you cite does not seem to paint the same picture you do here. I read the article as suggesting that it is unknown how the Court will address this, given Kavanaugh's dissent and the dissent by the Fed. Ct. of App. judge.

[dabrockster]

When the SCOTUS shuts down the Trump Tariffs due to over reach. I sure hope they have held all that money we have been getting as it will likely all have to be returned. What a nightmare to unwind all that…

Plus, what will this mean for all those agreements and the outlook of American across the globe.

[Maximus]

The chances the scotus rules against Trump when when obvious is very low. They know the hand that feeds them.

[dabrockster]

I thought SCOTUS was to rule on Trump's Tariffs last Friday and was pushed back to the next regularly scheduled "Opinion Day". Which is tomorrow.. I wonder if Vegas as a line on this for betting purposes.. I also wonder if pushing it back gave a indication on which way it will swing.. Wasn't that the same day Powell being referred to DOJ..

[PaloAltoCougar]

Per Polymarket there's only a 27% change the Court will rule in favor of Trump's tariffs.

[BlueK]

Per Polymarket there's only a 27% change the Court will rule in favor of Trump's tariffs.

it should be even lower than that because the Constitution doesn't give the president the authority to unilaterally create new taxes. In fact it explicitly gives it to a different branch and even specifies further which part of that branch has to start the process. I can't think of what idiotic, convoluted argument will try to be made, but I'm sure Alito will come up with something. I just don't think enough will go along with it.

[frank ryan]

Per Polymarket there's only a 27% change the Court will rule in favor of Trump's tariffs.

Well can't Trump ignore the court since they previously said he was immune from criminality?

[Moliere]

Well can't Trump doesn't ignore the court since they previously said he was immune from criminality?

[dabrockster]

Per Polymarket there's only a 27% change the Court will rule in favor of Trump's tariffs.

I guess we all need to buckle up for when that hits as I think we will see a jolt to our stocks and the market as it will further place our economy in flux.. Thinking about all that will happen and what that entails. Returning of money.. If the Govt. had earmarked this for things. For example, the recent military bonus check or our taxes for 2025. Will any planning for reducing taxes now be tossed.

Gonna be a bumpy time next week..

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting:

[dabrockster]

Interesting:

Is that specific to this case?