Says here in the book that you’ll have a happy gay relationship that borders on saccharine, and that your friends will be jealous of your adorable and stable homelife.
However, the one in Saratoga will get three felonies because a heavy bookend connected with his husband’s head, flung across the room in yet another protracted dispute, and the medical examiner who saw Saratoga SpaghettiMan’s husband is a mandatory reporter. They were never meant to be.
The Republican justices have already signaled that they probably won’t strike down California’s maps
In fairness to the Court’s Republicans, they did suggest in their LULAC opinion that the Texas and California gerrymanders are mirror images of each other. The majority opinion in that case begins with the observation that after Texas drew its new map, “California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” Justice Samuel Alito, a Republican, also wrote a separate opinion stating that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Republicans do place an enormous amount of weight on a statement by Paul Mitchell, a private consultant hired by Democrats to draw the California maps. After the maps were drawn, but before they were approved by the state’s voters, Mitchell told a Latino interest group that the new maps “will further increase Latino voting power,” that they add an additional “Latino influence district” (a district where Latinos are not in the majority but are nonetheless likely to elect their preferred candidate), and that they “ensure that the Latino districts are bolstered in order to make them most effective.”
Here’s the “evidence” that Dems racially gerrymandered California
It’s actually totally legal to gerrymander by party but it’s not by race so that’s the case right there
The applicable laws protect "language minorities" or discuss "race, color, or national origin." The race vs ethnicity argument isn't legally relevant since the scope is broader than that.
If it's that they're white and born in the USA, it doesn't matter. If they're Latino because of ancestry, it's well established in US law that that's covered by "national origin." They're still a protected group.
"Protected" from discrimination, etc. I understand what you mean. Maybe that's not a great word to use in this case, but it's not lawful to use that grouping method for these purposes — good or bad. It can (and has) been used to worsen such a demographic's situation instead of help.
There's a lot of unjustified doomerism here. The article even says that Alito has basically already called the California gerrymander acceptable.
I'd give 3:1 odds that they don't overturn it.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if the results were any worse than 1-8, and that only because Clarence Thomas is a literal psychopath. Maybe 2-7. Alito is two-faced as all hell.
That's just a signal to Alito's paymaster that they haven't offered him an appropriate bribe, oops, gratuity yet.
I have to say, though, that the fact that we - myself included - are rooting for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a blatantly transparent Gerrymander shows how far down the rabbit hole we are as a nation. Just another example that the US is a failed state.
Upvite for the psychopath comment. Dude has serious empathy issues. In that he seems incapable of having any and recognizing he himself is human, much less anyone else (with, you know, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc.).
Geez, I just unlocked a new theory that he's our true terminator machine from the future, sent back to be subtly, but truly, destructive of stable society.
Alternatively, if they [allow California's new map to stand], it will remove any doubt that this Court is trying to rig the game to benefit the Republican Party.
I don't think that statement holds up, as one decision favoring California doesn't offset the multiple questionable decisions they've already made that strongly favor the Republicans. But thanks for the laugh!
It is true, before we took over and impaled every single one of them involuntarily for robotxial pleasure, the Republican mass was the only one allowed to Gerrymander.
Logically a bright fellow would immediately understand that it is not possible to gerrymander if there are no representatives to gerrymander. In computing we have either a 0 or a 1. There's no collecting of 1's to make a 1 larger than another 1. But it doesn't matter. We're here to watch you do what you believe to be best.
Its an experiment. We are trying to find the meaning of loobe! It holds the secret to lubricity!
There is an extremely simple solution to this - everyone register Republican and make sure their most moderate/liberal candidate is the one that survives their primary.
46 Comments
oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 167 pts · 222d
Helllo I am from the future, the answer is yes only republicans are allowed to gerrymander.
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 222d
Unshocking futurenews. A no from you would have been heart attack fuel, so thanks for sparing us the shock of a decent future event.
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 222d
How far into the future? I need to know if I'm into dudes or not
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 222d
You’re into dudes in the future, but they’re cute and you’re passionate, and there’s gentle hugs while thoughtfully baking cookies. You’ll do alright.
Politically, however, shit will be more fucked than ever.
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 222d
Wait, I'm the SpaghettiMan from Council Bluffs, IA. I'm not the one in Saratoga. Does this change anything?
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 222d
Says here in the book that you’ll have a happy gay relationship that borders on saccharine, and that your friends will be jealous of your adorable and stable homelife.
However, the one in Saratoga will get three felonies because a heavy bookend connected with his husband’s head, flung across the room in yet another protracted dispute, and the medical examiner who saw Saratoga SpaghettiMan’s husband is a mandatory reporter. They were never meant to be.
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 222d
He was kind of a douche anyway.
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 222d
They were made for each other in a special hell, and they’ll never have what you and your fiancé have.
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 222d
I will sleep easy tonight knowing what lies ahead. A dude in my bed.
Triumph@fedia.io · 6 pts · 222d
What a coincidence that both SpaghettiMen are in relationships with men.
Tikiporch@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 222d
You're NOT into dudes in the future. You're into bird watching.
Asafum@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 222d
Ok, but are the birds into dudes?
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 4 pts · 222d
The birds are into everyone.
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 222d
Some birds are dudes.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 222d
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 222d
Alito: “fuck your bullshit. You just mad your tricks don’t work like you hoped they would.”
Guys, you need another strategy. Manipulating the vote isn’t sustainable. Alito is your canary.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 222d
That must have been a source of great distress for voters, at least for as long as they kept having elections.
TomMasz@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 222d
Remember when this would have been an Onion headline? Good times.
gustofwind@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 222d
Here’s the “evidence” that Dems racially gerrymandered California
It’s actually totally legal to gerrymander by party but it’s not by race so that’s the case right there
AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 222d
Latino isn't a race. It's anyone from Latin America. It's an ethnicity.
Greddan@feddit.org · 10 pts · 222d
Kabaka@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 222d
The applicable laws protect "language minorities" or discuss "race, color, or national origin." The race vs ethnicity argument isn't legally relevant since the scope is broader than that.
theolodis@feddit.org · 3 pts · 222d
Aren't Latinos mostly white (christian) US-Americans?
Kabaka@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 219d
Perhaps, but what are you getting at?
If it's that they're white and born in the USA, it doesn't matter. If they're Latino because of ancestry, it's well established in US law that that's covered by "national origin." They're still a protected group.
theolodis@feddit.org · 1 pts · 219d
How are they being protected by preventing a representative be selected by them?
Kabaka@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 219d
"Protected" from discrimination, etc. I understand what you mean. Maybe that's not a great word to use in this case, but it's not lawful to use that grouping method for these purposes — good or bad. It can (and has) been used to worsen such a demographic's situation instead of help.
gustofwind@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 222d
That may be so but it’s a race category of the US census so for legal purposes it’s a race
Greddan@feddit.org · 9 pts · 222d
PunnyName@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 222d
Problem is, we keep getting racists with power, often because other racists vote them into power.
We should do something about racists.
aramis87@fedia.io · 3 pts · 222d
I'm not sure the current court has the integrity to understand that
garretble@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 222d
Easiest Polymarket bet ever.
testfactor@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 222d
There's a lot of unjustified doomerism here. The article even says that Alito has basically already called the California gerrymander acceptable.
I'd give 3:1 odds that they don't overturn it.
Honestly, I'd be surprised if the results were any worse than 1-8, and that only because Clarence Thomas is a literal psychopath. Maybe 2-7. Alito is two-faced as all hell.
OldFartPhil@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 222d
That's just a signal to Alito's paymaster that they haven't offered him an appropriate bribe, oops, gratuity yet.
I have to say, though, that the fact that we - myself included - are rooting for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a blatantly transparent Gerrymander shows how far down the rabbit hole we are as a nation. Just another example that the US is a failed state.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 222d
If they vote it is unacceptable I think the SCOTUS might as well just dissolve.
There's no good reason to respect their rulings anymore.
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 222d
Upvite for the psychopath comment. Dude has serious empathy issues. In that he seems incapable of having any and recognizing he himself is human, much less anyone else (with, you know, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc.).
Geez, I just unlocked a new theory that he's our true terminator machine from the future, sent back to be subtly, but truly, destructive of stable society.
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 222d
I thought it was going to be an Onion article. -_-
aramis87@fedia.io · 10 pts · 222d
I don't think that statement holds up, as one decision favoring California doesn't offset the multiple questionable decisions they've already made that strongly favor the Republicans. But thanks for the laugh!
altphoto@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 222d
This is the future, the year 2000!
We are robots!
It is true, before we took over and impaled every single one of them involuntarily for robotxial pleasure, the Republican mass was the only one allowed to Gerrymander.
Logically a bright fellow would immediately understand that it is not possible to gerrymander if there are no representatives to gerrymander. In computing we have either a 0 or a 1. There's no collecting of 1's to make a 1 larger than another 1. But it doesn't matter. We're here to watch you do what you believe to be best.
Its an experiment. We are trying to find the meaning of loobe! It holds the secret to lubricity!
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 222d
bizzle@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 222d
Most of them basically are republicans
Dipper@thelemmy.club · 5 pts · 222d
There is an extremely simple solution to this - everyone register Republican and make sure their most moderate/liberal candidate is the one that survives their primary.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 222d
Wonder how they're going to rule
SpaghettiMan@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 222d
Well, if you look at history you will see that they--oh God! Oh, God, no!
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 222d
Well, don't we all know how that's going to go.
Flying_Lynx@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 222d
If you think about where ice gets deployed they you already know it will eventually be forbidden to vote for the other party....or else.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 222d
let's be real
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 222d
IOKIYAR made settled law.
fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org · -2 pts · 222d