(1) Democrats and Republicans engaging in unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering or (2) Mitch McConnell refusing a vote on Merrick Garland as part of the “advise and consent” role of the Senate regarding SCOTUS nominees?
1) For the record, Republicans are not gerrymandering because of race issues, that is a Democrat talking point. Republicans are doing it as a power grab at the direction of an impudent man-child who is failing at his job and is doing everything possible to avoid the consequences. Race has nothing to do with it. Now, that doesn't mean that the Republican efforts aren't just as abhorrent, just making sure that the truth is stated on this.
2) If I had to pick one as being worse, I'd go with the gerrymandering. First, while what McConnel did was wrong, it was still a 50/50 as to whether it was going to actually result in changing things (Remember that in 2016 Trump really only won by about 20,000 votes in critical locations). Second, as much as the democrats complain, the lowest bar of being nominated for a Supreme Court judge is still a pretty high bar and you have to be an accomplished judge with a good understanding of the Constitution to get to that level. There are biases, obviously, but you are still the cream of the crop. Third, this redistricting thing is getting ugly quickly. The entire reason that this country broke away from England was due to no representation of their beliefs in government. People get frustrated when their complaints fall on deaf ears. Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to violence (insert Yoda voice "The path to the dark side, this is"). I've been complaining about escalation on this (and the previous) board for years. This path of noncompromising partisanship is eventually going to lead to another civil war if continued. That sounds doomy/ gloomy, but the number of people cheering as the train approaches the broken bridge currently far exceeds the people clamoring to pull the brakes.
1) For the record, Republicans are not gerrymandering because of race issues, that is a Democrat talking point. Republicans are doing it as a power grab at the direction of an impudent man-child who is failing at his job and is doing everything possible to avoid the consequences. Race has nothing to do with it. Now, that doesn't mean that the Republican efforts aren't just as abhorrent, just making sure that the truth is stated on this.
2) If I had to pick one as being worse, I'd go with the gerrymandering. First, while what McConnel did was wrong, it was still a 50/50 as to whether it was going to actually result in changing things (Remember that in 2016 Trump really only won by about 20,000 votes in critical locations). Second, as much as the democrats complain, the lowest bar of being nominated for a Supreme Court judge is still a pretty high bar and you have to be an accomplished judge with a good understanding of the Constitution to get to that level. There are biases, obviously, but you are still the cream of the crop. Third, this redistricting thing is getting ugly quickly. The entire reason that this country broke away from England was due to no representation of their beliefs in government. People get frustrated when their complaints fall on deaf ears. Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to violence (insert Yoda voice "The path to the dark side, this is"). I've been complaining about escalation on this (and the previous) board for years. This path of noncompromising partisanship is eventually going to lead to another civil war if continued. That sounds doomy/ gloomy, but the number of people cheering as the train approaches the broken bridge currently far exceeds the people clamoring to pull the brakes.
I'd go with the Garland block. Part of that is that we've had time to see some consequences and how it played out. At the time, I considered that norm breaking, and I think it is one of the more egregious ones that we've been experiencing for a long, long time now. It seemed to accelerate things from both sides, and it has robbed the SCt and it's decisions of some legitimacy (which I think of as subjective) from a large portion of the populace.
Of course, I also downplay voting and think it is a joke. But time will tell how much these bi-partisan gerrymandering efforts will chip away at our government's legitimacy.
I will also add WRT Brad's post, I do think that McConnel's actions are in some way an indirect factor leading to the gerrymandering thing. So maybe it could be considered worse for that reason. The escalation has been going on for decades though and it's hard to pin down the catalyst point.
Then again, maybe 100 years from now, historians will write about the eventual downfall of the United States because of a blow-job.
(1) Democrats and Republicans engaging in unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering or (2) Mitch McConnell refusing a vote on Merrick Garland as part of the “advise and consent” role of the Senate regarding SCOTUS nominees?
Thoughtful responses only please.
I guess number 2 by default. The latest round of gerrymandering is a good thing. It's more fair than the one side only doing (or doing it more) and it increases the probability of it getting fixed. As long as one side is benefiting more the probability of it getting fixed are slim to none. Once neither side really benefits from it, they might actually fix the issue. I predict Democrats will magically all of sudden be for new laws on gerrymandering after the 28 elections.
@squeakyclean Dems have done way more gerrymandering than Republicans. Look at the Northeast and Illinois. Republicans are just starting to even things out a bit. We would still prefer fair maps in all 50 states but Dems will never agree.
(1) Democrats and Republicans engaging in unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering or (2) Mitch McConnell refusing a vote on Merrick Garland as part of the “advise and consent” role of the Senate regarding SCOTUS nominees?
Thoughtful responses only please.
I guess number 2 by default. The latest round of gerrymandering is a good thing. It's more fair than the one side only doing (or doing it more) and it increases the probability of it getting fixed. As long as one side is benefiting more the probability of it getting fixed are slim to none. Once neither side really benefits from it, they might actually fix the issue. I predict Democrats will magically all of sudden be for new laws on gerrymandering after the 28 elections.
Wasn't it dems who wanted to pass a bill against gerrymandering and the Republicans didn't want it?
@squeakyclean Dems have done way more gerrymandering than Republicans. Look at the Northeast and Illinois. Republicans are just starting to even things out a bit. We would still prefer fair maps in all 50 states but Dems will never agree.
In 2019 there was a bill to outlaw gerrymandering, never got a Republican vote and McConnell blocked it. In 20 it was introduced, again passed the House without a Republican vote and couldn't defeat the filibuster.
Gerrymandering is wrong. But here are some results showing it is pretty neutral between parties. Since 2000, in 8 elections the Democrats have had a higher percentage of reps elected than vote, in five they had fewer reps as a percentage than votes.
The Republican we have had more reps than share of vote 12 times, and fewer once. So this isn't as one sided as some might suggest.
As to MTIOT''s question, I vote for gerrymandering. These +20 seats allow the real flamethrowers a voice they wouldn't get. They then represent for 50 years and have power.
(1) Democrats and Republicans engaging in unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering or (2) Mitch McConnell refusing a vote on Merrick Garland as part of the “advise and consent” role of the Senate regarding SCOTUS nominees?
Thoughtful responses only please.
That's a tough question. I'll also go with the Garland thing, for these reasons:
1. The cumulative effect of gerrymandering is blunted by the fact that both parties do it.
2. There is no real fix for the gerrymandering thing, because you can simply do the exact same gerrymandering, and just make sure you never mention race, and it becomes magically constitutional.
3. Unwritten norms are just as important to the small-c constitution of a government as the big-c Constitutional text is, and McConnell broke a pretty big one. That's a bell that simply can't ever be unrung, and we will probably just see more bells rung in quicker succession because of it.
@boogie similar to the border bill they proposed in 24 it wasn't ever going to pass.
Only because Republicans didn't want to ban gerrymandering or fix the border. Both would have passed if Republicans did what was right and had balls/spine to not do Trump's bidding.
You pretend Dems were the primary abusers of gerrymandering but it is obvious which party supports the practice. Acting like the bill meant nothing because it didn't pass just ignores the reason....dumb cheating self serving Republicans
Neither make my list of the most serious problems in government.
Garland: He wasn’t going to be confirmed even if there was a vote. Gorsuch is a rockstar. He is conservative, but not a Trump sycophant. We are lucky to have him.
Gerrymandering. This is a direct and proximate result of the one person one vote SOTUS ruling years ago. I thought at the time the ruling would cause problems and it has. Not just with gerrymandering. Interesting to me that many who oppose the electoral college oppose gerrymandering. Two sides of the same coin when it comes to political leadership. Including representation by geographical area is an effective counterweight to one-party politics.
