Gerrymandering, For Lack Of A Better Word, IS Good...

[carpedm9587]

Of course you are well aware that the United States is not a democracy.

It is not a pure democracy - it is a "representative democracy" or "democratic republic" (whichever you prefer) in which those representatives are (presumably) democratically elected.

The real problem is that political parties which are private organizations have taken control of the government which is supposed to function for the public's interests. This latest ruling is not the beginning of the end but simply a symptom of a problem that has existed for decades.

I agree that fixing "the beginning" on any one event will always result in the inevitable "but this other thing led to that...so..." That is why I said "historians will probably..."

[Mountain Man]

That is why I said "historians will probably..."

I don't believe that any of us can know what historians centuries from now, wholly removed from current passions, will consider to be catalytic moments in time.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe that any of us can know what historians centuries from now, wholly removed from current passions, will consider to be catalytic moments in time.

That's probably why I said, "I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift," instead of the more definitive, "historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift."

[seer]

That's probably why I said, "I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift," instead of the more definitive, "historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift."

So following the Constitution is a shift?

[Mountain Man]

That's probably why I said, "I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift," instead of the more definitive, "historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift."

Yes, and your "suspicions" on this matter are neither here nor there. For instance, I like to think that historians 100 years from now will regard Barack Obama as the worst US president of the 20th/21st century, but I have no idea if they will since they will be examining the issue with a detachment that I could never have.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, and your "suspicions" on this matter are neither here nor there. For instance, I like to think that historians 100 years from now will regard Barack Obama as the worst US president of the 20th/21st century, but I have no idea if they will since they will be examining the issue with a detachment that I could never have.

So your position is (apparently) no one here should have an opinion on how history will look back on this time. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Teallaura]

And a loss for justice and our democratic model.

If/when this experiment we call the United States fails, I suspect historians will look back to this moment as the pivotal shift.

It puts the ball back in Congress' court.

[Mountain Man]

So your position is (apparently) no one here should have an opinion on how history will look back on this time. Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm suggesting that it's pointless because we have no idea what "history" will remember or how it will remember it, and that saying, "I think history will agree with me," is a cheap way of trying to validate your own opinion.

[carpedm9587]

It puts the ball back in Congress' court.

Yes it does. That was basically my point.

[carpedm9587]

I'm suggesting that it's pointless because we have no idea what "history" will remember or how it will remember it, and that saying, "I think history will agree with me," is a cheap way of trying to validate your own opinion.

Agreed that it is pure speculation, and likely spoken as a form of "cheap self-validation." I plead guilty. I find myself somewhat amused that it is being called out here, when there is so much rampant, "if X happened, then Y would result" speculation that happens here and, when I make a similar observation, the position is pretty much always vigorously defended as "justified."*

Let me guess - it's an apples and oranges comparison...

*ETA: that would be "whataboutism" were it not for the fact that I am agreeing with you about my post.

[Mountain Man]

... I am agreeing with you about my post.

[oxmixmudd]

No Jim, there is no Constitutional justification for Federal courts to be involved. It is a issue for the states...

Is there any way for you to actually read my words instead of some made up text I didn't write?

Go back and reread what I said and see if I anywhere implied Federal courts should be in State's business. I even acknowledged that I could see why they would feel they should NOT be in the state's business.

But I also lamented that unfortunately the party in control in the states with the gerrymandering have not the slightest interest in allowing the democratic process to determine the outcome in those states, which is contrary to everything we are supposed to believe in and stand for. Gerrymandering allows a minority to rule. And that is wrong.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

What the courts are basically saying is, "the political process that gives rise to gerrymandering needs to fix the problem," effectively taking the only institution that is supposed to be free of party bias out of the equation, and leaving the institutions that operate on "party bias" to solve a problem that the party in power will never want to solve.

I would say "I hope the Democrats take power and put a stop to this," but I suspect the Democrats will only continue the practice. Just because Republicans currently dominate the gerrymandering model doesn't mean the Democrats won't do exactly the same thing when they take power.

I have little confidence in the honesty and just behavior of either party.

Exactly. The two states most guilty are NC and MD. NC is republican. MD is democrat. The problem is that more and more, on the state and the federal level, the controls that were meant to prevent a small group or single person from seizing power are failing and being worked around.

And 'the people' are happy about it. Like sheep led to a slaughter.

Jim

[Teallaura]

Exactly. The two states most guilty are NC and MD. NC is republican. MD is democrat. The problem is that more and more, on the state and the federal level, the controls that were meant to prevent a small group or single person from seizing power are failing and being worked around.

And 'the people' are happy about it. Like sheep led to a slaughter.

Jim

You and Carpe seem to have pretty low opinions of the legislative process. I grant, it's messy and can easily get lots worse before it gets better but legislatures do tend to work out the excesses - eventually.

May take longer than it should - the legislative branches have been overly dependent on the courts for a while now. They're out of practice.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm suggesting that it's pointless because we have no idea what "history" will remember or how it will remember it, and that saying, "I think history will agree with me," is a cheap way of trying to validate your own opinion.

Read contemporary accounts of the Lincoln presidency and read modern ones. It’s like they are talking about two different people.