Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case

Nov 2012
40,781
11,759
Lebanon, TN
#12
a meme is a photo (or drawing or text or image of some sort) with a humorous caption.

the OP is a news post with quotes from the people being reported upon.

learn the difference.
And the Quotes shows that Ginsburg was the partisan, and Gorsuch was correct in the law.

The power is given to the state, not the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2014
14,734
9,001
massachusetts
#13
And the Quotes shows that Ginsburg was the partisan, and Gorsuch was correct in the law.

The power is given to the state, not the federal government.
And that would be true if you ignore the constitution, which Gorsuch does whenever it interferes with his agenda, which Ginsburg pointed out.

There is a lot of stuff not specifically spelled out in the constitution.
But this is in the constitution
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
And the gerrymandering question is a case arising under the constitution.
That's why it's before the court.

Of course our "experts" will all argue that it wouldn't come before the fantasy supreme court in their fantasy constitution game that they love to play. The fantasy constitution that doesn't include amendments that they don't like, and means exactly what they imagine it means....
 
Likes: 2 people
Nov 2012
40,781
11,759
Lebanon, TN
#14
And that would be true if you ignore the constitution, which Gorsuch does whenever it interferes with his agenda, which Ginsburg pointed out.

There is a lot of stuff not specifically spelled out in the constitution.
But this is in the constitution


And the gerrymandering question is a case arising under the constitution.
That's why it's before the court.

Of course our "experts" will all argue that it wouldn't come before the fantasy supreme court in their fantasy constitution game that they love to play. The fantasy constitution that doesn't include amendments that they don't like, and means exactly what they imagine it means....
She ignores the Constitution not Gorsuch. States NOT the federal Government determines Congressional Districts, which is to be governed by STATE CONSTITUTIONS not federal

She admits she ignores the constitution
Justice Ginsburg: "I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution"
 
Likes: 3 people
Sep 2017
714
271
Upside Down
#15
And that would be true if you ignore the constitution ...

Something, something, something 11th Amendment. Which you ignored when quoting that portion of Article III which you did.

It is the left on the bench that ignores the Constitution, in particular Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. As the Court makes all sort of law from the bench using the 14th Amendment as its template.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#16
a meme is a photo (or drawing or text or image of some sort) with a humorous caption.

the OP is a news post with quotes from the people being reported upon.

learn the difference.


Um, nope.

A meme (/ˈmiːm/ MEEM) is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture - often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme or meaning represented by the meme.[1] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[2]

The word is a neologism coined by Richard Dawkins.[3]

Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[4]

A field of study called memetics[5] arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that academic study can examine memes empirically. However, developments in neuroimaging may make empirical study possible.[6] Some commentators in the social sciences question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units, and are especially critical of the biological nature of the theory's underpinnings.[7] Others have argued that this use of the term is the result of a misunderstanding of the original proposal.[8]

The word meme originated with Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins's own position is somewhat ambiguous: he welcomed N. K. Humphrey's suggestion that "memes should be considered as living structures, not just metaphorically"[9] and proposed to regard memes as "physically residing in the brain".[10] Later, he argued that his original intentions, presumably before his approval of Humphrey's opinion, had been simpler.[11] At the New Directors' Showcase 2013 in Cannes, Dawkins' opinion on memetics was deliberately ambiguous.[12]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...rg/wiki/Meme&usg=AOvVaw04bBW3L-NgMMhMSRIu_GEE
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2012
10,839
9,032
nirvana
#17
The only problem is Gorsuch is Correct STATE LEGISLATURES draw congressional districts. Not the Federal Government. She is partisan playing politics
“That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.

Did you just not read that, or did you not understand what you were reading?
 
Likes: 1 person
Sep 2017
714
271
Upside Down
#18
LOL

Yeah, the black robes assuming power unto themselves under the guise of the 14th Amendment (which they have turned into the Constitution), as previously pointed out.

Except they [SCOTUS] ignore Section 5 of the 14th Amendment as they go merrily along usurping power.
 
Nov 2005
8,810
3,301
California
#19
Do you even know what a "meme" is?
Do you know what the word "fake" means?
The rest of your post is your opinion, and no matter how stupid it is, you're entitled to it. But that first sentence is definitively ignorant.
The original post is NOT a meme...and how can quotes from something that is on videotape be "fake?"
There are grown ups here - go play somewhere else.
His post sounds like a propaganda-bot that is blindly repeating the buzz-phrases.


And the Quotes shows that Ginsburg was the partisan, and Gorsuch was correct in the law.
The power is given to the state, not the federal government.
Too many people on the right talk in incomplete concepts. :wacko:
The state has the right to draw lines but they cannot violate the constitution. The state is bound to observe the rights as established in the constitution.

And what's really repugnant about the way the right is approaching this thread?
Gerrymandering has gotten out of control.
Instead of realizing that and admitting that is wrong and an abuse of power, the right insists on ignoring it because it's an abuse of power that benefits them.
:angry:

Ginsburg hit the nail on the head.
In one cutting remark, Ginsburg summed up how Gorsuch’s patronizing lecture omitted some of the Court’s most important precedents, and Smith gratefully followed up on it: “That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.

The right prefers to be ignorant on this. And their ignorance allows them to rile themselves up.


Except they [SCOTUS] ignore Section 5 of the 14th Amendment as they go merrily along usurping power.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


So much of right-wing confusion could be cleared up if they would simply be required to comprehend logic, Venn diagrams, and English.

If I say John has a key to the front door, does that mean that Jack does not have a key to the front door?
Obviously, no.

While Congress does have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, it's SCOTUS's job to interpret and apply the constitution.
Should go without saying... :blink:
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2012
19,845
8,387
California
#20
“That’s what Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr did, and a number of other cases that have followed along since.” In these cases, from the early nineteen-sixties, the Court established that the Justices, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments, very much had the right to tell states how to run their elections.

Did you just not read that, or did you not understand what you were reading?
Reynolds v. Sims:

How does the Court use the equal protection clause when that clause pertains to newly freed slaves only? Simple, you disregard the original understanding. There was almost no mention of reapportionment in the 14th Amendment because suffrage was not among the enumerated rights given newly freed slaves. Clearly, the Activist Court once again legislated from the bench!!
 

Similar Discussions