Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case

Dec 2012
19,430
8,313
California
#21
His post sounds like a propaganda-bot that is blindly repeating the buzz-phrases.



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.



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:
Appropriately, gerrymandering is against the law. But, the Court used the 14th Amendment to justify that law. In that process the Court was NOT interpreting, they were legislating.
 
Sep 2017
714
271
Upside Down
#22
Yep, Congress made no law, thus Section 5 of the 14th applies, except the left ignores that all the time. They have said that if Congress does not act (per Section 5 of the 14th) the courts should act, and they have, see forced busing and Roe v. Wade as just two examples.

Raw power grab by leftist judges. We are basically a nation that is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says, which was NEVER the Founders intent.
 
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2012
19,430
8,313
California
#23
Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr: Here are two prime-examples of an Activist Court setting a corrupt precedence and then using that corrupted precedence as though Congress, or the Amendment process has been used. The Court didn't interpret, they pulled phrases like the incorporation doctrine out of their butts to justify their corruption of the 14th Amendment to make-law from the bench. And of course, the Liberal sheeple have no problem with this. The Court will twist and turn the original intent of the Constitution, or any part of it, to justify their ends.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 3 people
Apr 2013
36,728
24,969
La La Land North
#24
Yep, Congress made no law, thus Section 5 of the 14th applies, except the left ignores that all the time. They have said that if Congress does not act (per Section 5 of the 14th) the courts should act, and they have, see forced busing and Roe v. Wade as just two examples.

Raw power grab by leftist judges. We are basically a nation that is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says, which was NEVER the Founders intent.
Wouldn't you be better off telling the actual SC justices how they are doing it all wrong? Or how about your congresscritters? Actually ex, you took too many lessons from JimmyB.
 
Sep 2015
13,885
5,027
Brown Township, Ohio
#25
Wouldn't you be better off telling the actual SC justices how they are doing it all wrong? Or how about your congresscritters? Actually ex, you took too many lessons from JimmyB.
JimmyB has the honored legal expert title on this board. I suspect that JimmyB passed the bar but suspect no further than that.
 
Dec 2012
19,430
8,313
California
#26
Wouldn't you be better off telling the actual SC justices how they are doing it all wrong? Or how about your congresscritters? Actually ex, you took too many lessons from JimmyB.
Wouldn't it be better if Congress and Executive branch take back the power they have and force the Court to do only the job enumerated in the Constitution, which is interpretation only?! There is a reason the Court was to have the least amount of power. We are fully aware of that reason now!
 
Last edited:
Likes: 3 people
Sep 2017
714
271
Upside Down
#27
Wouldn't it be better if Congress and Executive branch take back the power they have and force the Court to do only the job enumerated in the Constitution, which is interpretation only?! There is a reason the Court was to have the least amount of power. We are fully aware of that reason now!

That poster [RNG] forgets that I have him on ignore. :lol:

He isn't worth it as he is clueless about the Constitution. He thinks that the country was intended to be run by whatever the majority on the Court strikes their fancy at any moment in history.

The Supreme Court has caused more harm than either of the other two branches.
 
Likes: 1 person
Apr 2013
36,728
24,969
La La Land North
#28
A guy who has me on ignore sure does respond to my posts a lot.

But ex never did make much sense.
 
Oct 2017
101
43
Black Hills
#29
That poster [RNG] forgets that I have him on ignore. :lol:

He isn't worth it as he is clueless about the Constitution. He thinks that the country was intended to be run by whatever the majority on the Court strikes their fancy at any moment in history.

The Supreme Court has caused more harm than either of the other two branches.

It is laughable reading foreigners commenting about the Constitution when they are clueless.
 
Likes: 2 people

Similar Discussions