zxbc Exactly. Did you ever see the short video about the "future of Ukraine" where the mid-level government reps would be eliminated and the people would deal "directly with the gov" and everything would be done digitally?
@@BudandBloomWithBlossom Zelenskyy created a totalitarian government(banned opposition party; consolidated all media to state media) while Americans pay for it
This was also part of why the civil war happen, Ignore national legislation so federal could decide on its own if keep slavery or not (obiously most interest was to keep it)
In theory: The Congress would have to pass a law telling the State Legislature to obey State Constitutions. In Reality: They shouldn't have to, the concept of State Legislatures bound by State Law dates back to those same Founders!
Like medieval baronies, House of Koch made peace with House of Trump. The price was controlling the Court appointments and the climate agenda. Whitehouse, Sheldon . The Scheme (p. 83)
I know of no country on earth that has such debated constitutions as the USA. Something must be wrong about the federal and state constitutions. In real democracies supreme court judge appointments are not political. They are appointed due to their quality: experience and a deep understanding of the constitution.
True, but when a majority are originalists, they think it’s 1800, not 2022. That’s why the Court is stacked ultra-right. Meanwhile, most lied during their appointment hearings, I.e. when they said Roe was settled law, so here we are.
You just said 8ts not political, but it's political. I think you meant partisan. Everything is political. Anything that has to do with the law is political.
One of the lesser known casualties of Big money in politics has been the balance of power. We used to have checks and balances to stop a runaway power grab. When money entered the equation the system had a concentration of self interest. Once that common self interest came into play it was very difficult for one branch of government to hold another branch in check because they are no longer operating on principle but on moneyed interest. And here we are.
Exactly. That is why people have stop beliving in capitalism, money has corrupt it all They even present it as the true say of society, where being rich mean success, and thus you have the RIGHT to decide over other that cant And this notion is super naive as it ignores the most fundamental aspect, Human nature, most that will find Richness will be trought scams and abuse, because they are selfish and this lack restriction. Then they will decide the right and wrongs, making Bribes legal (lobbies), lowering standar for living and food, weadges, and then sanction democratic acts like unions, congregation, protest, and then even election so only a trusted "High class" will decide
I want to see somber, thoughtful Supreme Court Justices taking their jobs seriously, not a bunch of camera ready smiling fools. This is no laughing matter.
You can bet your bottom dollar the American Conservative Union and CPAC funded and brought this argument to the SCOTUS. This is huge. If this goes the way of the states, and each state can circumvent their own courts and constitution, this would make Voter Suppression Laws a reality. CPAC has it written into their mission objective to get Voter Suppression Laws passed under the guise of election and vote fraud.
Plz this why i know democrats or the left are the real alpha males!!! You guys have the values and the morals that my hole child hood was base on!! I never new how important this stuff is till know!!! I'm teach my kids the same!!!!
I had to listen to parts three times and still not certain I understand. Really interested in this coverage- please keep breaking it down for us. The example helped
How are those representatives selected, and what are their roles within the constitution? Because it looks like America is more complex then a single word would credit.
This is so like this party,POWER, POWER, Lord, why don't they realize that if something like voting rights we as early person's that marched to have these rights, Why wouldn't we still support to keep our votes from being broken down by a party that wants to change what has been successful in the past, He'll, don't they know if nothing is broken, just what need to be repaired????? Just do the jobs you've been elected to do. Stop the POWER seeking so the POWER becomes your parties,and you sit in that chair trying to kill the desires of WE The People!!!!!
From Google "The percentage of voters registered with a qualified political party decreased from 76.2% to 74.9%. The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 45.1% to 46.3%. The percentage of voters registered with the Republican Party decreased from 27.1% to 24.0%."?? Which leaves 30% "Independant/swing" voters. So how does the smallest party get the most seats on the Supreme Court??? That doesn't look like a Democracy to me.
Mitch McConnel, all one guy. It was a beautiful plan of his, took decades for him to slowly work the pieces into place, and when he made some obviously bold moves... no one stopped him. To the end there he was denying any and all access to Judicial placements, not only in the Supreme Court, when his political party was not in the dominate position to make them. There was some playing of his opponents too, they weakened certain rules that would then prevent them from doing the same to him, when the tables would be turned! If it wasn't so diabolical, all to get Political Parties in charge of Federal type Elections, it would be perfect for narrative.
Why can't they just drawn district voting maps based on the census population? That is very common in most democratic countries Every ten years a census is done
Yeah in a republic WE THE PEOPLE ELECT representatives. It’s not even a republic if those representatives can just disagree with the results and keep their power at that point it’s an oligarchy.
Great animated explanation and implications. Also...when people say "our democracy," it is (or at least should be) understood that they mean "our republic." A republic is feudalism with elections, where the elected "lords" go by the name "legislator/representative/senator, president/governor/mayor," etc and the only "democracy" that exists is exercised by those lords. The masses merely get elections to decide who SOME of those lords are. So when they say "protect/defend our democracy," what they REALLY mean is "protect/defend the elective aspect of our authoritarian system." They don't really mean "democracy."
Has anyone sued the Democratic or Republican parties over stopping their own candidates who want higher minimum wages, or paid Universal healthcare or any of the other needs of the working class and poor.
As a capitalist country we do not need government health care that is socialism I do not want the hard worker to pay for the rest 10%flat tax across the board no government aid foreign or domestic till we are out of debt
Oh! I love her make up!!! It gives her an air of "je ne sais quoi"!! (Sarc) How shallow are her listeners in the face Amy being a propaganda tool of the dems!!
So, I haven't heard the oral argument, but others are saying that SCROTA doesn't appear to be buying this. That is not, of course, definitive--consider _Dennis_ and _Haymond,_ though at least they split Kavanaugh from Gorsuch.
Does Prof. Tolson engage the youtube comments section for friendly discourse? An ambient temperature explaination of the SCOTUS judges on the "substantive" or "procedural" is helpful for the public. Amy Goodman has it right where I think most people wanting to understand, are going..."wait..what?" Which reminds me of the whole allegory of the wise men in a dark room trying to determine what is in the room with them. Necessary and elaborative descriptions can be extremely helpful, but how much is so journalism can explain a room temperature? How much is the temperature of public officials, who should be prepared and considerate of the need for the public to in return document as we are being documented? How much is a requirement of sAfE public discourse? Can you please recommend some, court decisions, pre-Scotus public official decisions, reading examples, that will shine some more light that journalists and people who just would like to know, can see the shape of the puzzle and missing pieces? DN, procedurally are the public prohibited from hearing direct quotes, cadence and tone of public officials from a recording of a live court? What about live broadcast? Prof. Tolson, if the public had a voting receipt would it not be a "papers and effects". So how does a person get their own voting receipt? What might be the complications of a city granting the right to vote to younger naturalized voters or petitioning immigrating or residential aliens, whom are self evident tax payers, the ability to vote? What about asylum seekers who have been or are currently serving our nation? The right to vote, in, the same place, the people, live and are beholden to the law should be a given. Especially when a votiing document & public schooling location could make known, a plan to stay, and approximate to where. What procedural challenges would a city and community face? Prof. Tolson, where might each intial petition be filed? Hyperlinks are fun.
the legislator should get rid of all elections and they themselves should choose who they want in all federal, state, and local elections. I hope you get that I am being sarcastic.
The Constitution of the United States The democracy is the 10 miles of Washington DC dostric of Colombia a foreign corporation own by ENGLAND United States" is the "District of Columbia" incorporated. "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State" Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785, Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287
It may be the devil...or it may be the Lord...but you gotta serve somebody.....bob Dylan.............. GODs WILL HAS NO PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY....jerry nadler
There is no democracy left in America, it ended in 2020. Democrat mafia is spending 36 billion to fund truckers retirement until 2051 . My buddy collects $180.00 a day as a recently retired truck driver. Now we can support him
As Professor Tolson said, here is the entire text of the place in the Constitution at issue in this case: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators." This seems very straightforward. It is not crazy to interpret this to mean that (absent federal legislation) a State prescribes the "time, place and manner" of electing federal office holders through their elected legislature. That is what this says. A legislature is, by definition, a creature of the constitution that establishes its existence. It cannot exceed the bounds of the constitution that authorizes it to act. In this case, the legislative body exceeded its authority (acted ultra vires) in adopting illegally gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of its governing document (the state constitution). First question presented: does drawing the boundaries of congressional districts mean the same thing as setting rules on the "time place and manner" of voting? Historically states have been doing this when it seems questionable to begin with. Gerrymandering goes to the heart of the exercise of the right to vote - and violates that right. It is not a mere regulation of the time that a person votes, the place where you vote, or the manner by which you cast your ballot. It tells who you can vote for and who you cannot vote for. It herds you into a pen where you have no ability to vote for someone who represents you. But even if States will continue to run roughshod over the rights of the people to representative government, Congress can stop this by regulating how districts are to be drawn. They can start by doing away with single-member, winner-take-all districts in favor of proportional voting and multi-member districts that allow voters an opportunity to elect representatives that are - well, more representative of them. In other words, there is a need for Congress to fix this in an honest and fair way. The cynics will say they will not because it is a question of maintaining the horrible left-right divide that allows the left and right to hold onto power in this two-partty system we have. But we are starting to see cracks developing in this system, as with the brave act of Senator Sinema to veer neither right nor left, but to move forward.
It is disappointing to see even a law professor looking at what is a LEGAL case as really a POLITICAL one, where you have "conservative" justices versus "liberal" justices taking political positions instead of doing their jobs: following the text of the law (in this case the Eection Clause(es) of the Constitution, interpreting its meaning and applying it to the facts of the case or controversy between two parties who are appearing before the Court. It is fashionable these days to be cynical in general, and towards the SCOTUS in particular to say they are not judges doing their jobs but are in reality a group of political hacks playing games they want to "win" instead of honestly ruling on the points of law presented before them. So, in this case, they are not suppose to be deciding, like some "Super Legislature" what they think the law SHOULD be - and that State courts and governors "should" do this but not that. Their role is to interpret what the constitution says as applied to the facts of this case, which is really fairly straight forward. There is no need for all this hysteria.
Kill that noise, the republicans brought the case to the supreme court hoping to overturn voter results when they can't win by cheating and gerrymandering. Begone foolish troll
On the way to Fascist America, one step at a time.
zxbc Exactly. Did you ever see the short video about the "future of Ukraine" where the mid-level government reps would be eliminated and the people would deal "directly with the gov" and everything would be done digitally?
Via federal control over states? That's what you mean right? States have rights!
@@BudandBloomWithBlossom Zelenskyy created a totalitarian government(banned opposition party; consolidated all media to state media) while Americans pay for it
@@conrmckocoa9352 I didn't know this. You need to see what they have planned for the future and it is fully totalitarian.
@@BudandBloomWithBlossom Yup, WEF openly publishes their plans now. And it's not 'free', it's fully controlled. Agenda 2030 (UN), Agenda 21 (UN), Great Reset (WEF)
So state legislators can ignore the constitution? Then why bother having any constitution at all?
Rhetorical question
This was also part of why the civil war happen, Ignore national legislation so federal could decide on its own if keep slavery or not (obiously most interest was to keep it)
America trully has regress
In theory:
The Congress would have to pass a law telling the State Legislature to obey State Constitutions.
In Reality:
They shouldn't have to, the concept of State Legislatures bound by State Law dates back to those same Founders!
@Dhaki Shang
Right wing scum have never read the constitution
Impeach Thomas.
All conservatives judges too.
Like medieval baronies, House of Koch made peace with House of Trump. The price was controlling the Court appointments and the climate agenda.
Whitehouse, Sheldon . The Scheme (p. 83)
I'm learning that some people who have money and power wants to rule America as if they are Royal kings or Queens of America.
I know of no country on earth that has such debated constitutions as the USA. Something must be wrong about the federal and state constitutions.
In real democracies supreme court judge appointments are not political. They are appointed due to their quality: experience and a deep understanding of the constitution.
Our political system these days revolves around favouritism over the rule of law.
True, but when a majority are originalists, they think it’s 1800, not 2022. That’s why the Court is stacked ultra-right. Meanwhile, most lied during their appointment hearings, I.e. when they said Roe was settled law, so here we are.
You just said 8ts not political, but it's political. I think you meant partisan. Everything is political. Anything that has to do with the law is political.
One of the lesser known casualties of Big money in politics has been the balance of power. We used to have checks and balances to stop a runaway power grab. When money entered the equation the system had a concentration of self interest. Once that common self interest came into play it was very difficult for one branch of government to hold another branch in check because they are no longer operating on principle but on moneyed interest. And here we are.
Exactly. That is why people have stop beliving in capitalism, money has corrupt it all
They even present it as the true say of society, where being rich mean success, and thus you have the RIGHT to decide over other that cant
And this notion is super naive as it ignores the most fundamental aspect, Human nature, most that will find Richness will be trought scams and abuse, because they are selfish and this lack restriction.
Then they will decide the right and wrongs, making Bribes legal (lobbies), lowering standar for living and food, weadges, and then sanction democratic acts like unions, congregation, protest, and then even election so only a trusted "High class" will decide
Dems could right now pass a bill requiring independent redistricting federally
Source? Under the US Constitution, states have absolute right to control and conduct their own elections. It's not under federal control.
That's fascist. states have to the rights to do so
Lol, but then, they would also loose some counties and maybe states. Independent does not mean impartial.
I believe it would not pass the filibuster
Dems could do abortion law, restructuring of education debt, marijuana legalization yet they don't. You have been played.
What a great way of explaining what's going on w/ the cartoon illustration.
I want to see somber, thoughtful Supreme Court Justices taking their jobs seriously, not a bunch of camera ready smiling fools.
This is no laughing matter.
Eggs in your beer too?
They do take their job seriously, they work for the .1% seriously!
You can bet your bottom dollar the American Conservative Union and CPAC funded and brought this argument to the SCOTUS. This is huge. If this goes the way of the states, and each state can circumvent their own courts and constitution, this would make Voter Suppression Laws a reality. CPAC has it written into their mission objective to get Voter Suppression Laws passed under the guise of election and vote fraud.
Plz this why i know democrats or the left are the real alpha males!!! You guys have the values and the morals that my hole child hood was base on!! I never new how important this stuff is till know!!! I'm teach my kids the same!!!!
@@mrmoneysign3721 I hope they learn better English than you.
Exellent explanation by Professor Tolson
"States rights" = Throwback to the Missouri Compromise, and "Popular Sovereignty."
I'm sick of pundits and educators that continue to call the GQP conservative! There is nada damn thing conservative about the 5 GQP justices.
"Independent" of the will of the people.
The people don't want the parties picking their voters.
We're in the legal phase of fascism.
I had to listen to parts three times and still not certain I understand. Really interested in this coverage- please keep breaking it down for us. The example helped
It's about State Rights.
THE COUNTRY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY ONLY DISTRIC OF COLUMBIA IS A DEMOCRACY
How are those representatives selected, and what are their roles within the constitution?
Because it looks like America is more complex then a single word would credit.
Blah blah blah
why are the supreme court even listening to this
Because they're majority MAGA now.
Thanks my brilliant sister well said..you do oo Amy love you both
Freedom for All
Current NC lawmakers sued NC judges of NC law for permission of US judges of law to draw voting borders independent of US law?
This is so like this party,POWER, POWER, Lord, why don't they realize that if something like voting rights we as early person's that marched to have these rights, Why wouldn't we still support to keep our votes from being broken down by a party that wants to change what has been successful in the past, He'll, don't they know if nothing is broken, just what need to be repaired????? Just do the jobs you've been elected to do. Stop the POWER seeking so the POWER becomes your parties,and you sit in that chair trying to kill the desires of WE The People!!!!!
From Google "The percentage of voters registered with a qualified political party decreased from 76.2% to 74.9%. The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 45.1% to 46.3%. The percentage of voters registered with the Republican Party decreased from 27.1% to 24.0%."?? Which leaves 30% "Independant/swing" voters. So how does the smallest party get the most seats on the Supreme Court??? That doesn't look like a Democracy to me.
Mitch McConnel, all one guy.
It was a beautiful plan of his, took decades for him to slowly work the pieces into place, and when he made some obviously bold moves... no one stopped him. To the end there he was denying any and all access to Judicial placements, not only in the Supreme Court, when his political party was not in the dominate position to make them. There was some playing of his opponents too, they weakened certain rules that would then prevent them from doing the same to him, when the tables would be turned!
If it wasn't so diabolical, all to get Political Parties in charge of Federal type Elections, it would be perfect for narrative.
Laws are made by house and state senators. What part you don't understand. Why would the supreme court even look at this.
Why can't they just drawn district voting maps based on the census population? That is very common in most democratic countries Every ten years a census is done
Keep the truth alive and kicking.❤❤❤❤❤❤
Please support and research The Venus Project. We need to go beyond politics poverty and war more now than ever.
Freedom to vote the way anyone wants is the highest pick in Democracy and government should not having any say in that.
Perfect reason to expand the court and start impeaching Thomas and Kavanaugh!
There's a reason why only eight states have mail-in voting by law and 42 states don't
Bravo, Neil!!
Thank You, Amy and DN 🙏🌎🌍🌏🙏🇺🇲
Supreme Criminality
Nine corrupt judges appointed for life, wave the flag.
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
"I pledge allegiance to The United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One nation under God
Not the original pledge. And a Republic is a type of Democracy. It's still a democracy.
@@austinhernandez2716 If we were truly a democracy then congress would be abolished
Nowhere in the constitution nor the declaration of independence does it mention the word democracy.
@@donforeman9051 okay? When the founding fathers first wrote the constitution only land owning white men could vote and senators were appointed
Yeah in a republic WE THE PEOPLE ELECT representatives. It’s not even a republic if those representatives can just disagree with the results and keep their power at that point it’s an oligarchy.
The people vote. The person with the most votes gets the job. Is that so hard to understand ?
Not surprising. I keep saying we won’t have a full United States soon.
So much for the party that wants less government
Hypocrites
Thank You Amy !
I dont think this will pass and if it does then America needs a whole new government.
Great animated explanation and implications.
Also...when people say "our democracy," it is (or at least should be) understood that they mean "our republic." A republic is feudalism with elections, where the elected "lords" go by the name "legislator/representative/senator, president/governor/mayor," etc and the only "democracy" that exists is exercised by those lords. The masses merely get elections to decide who SOME of those lords are. So when they say "protect/defend our democracy," what they REALLY mean is "protect/defend the elective aspect of our authoritarian system." They don't really mean "democracy."
Has anyone sued the Democratic or Republican parties over stopping their own candidates who want higher minimum wages, or paid Universal healthcare or any of the other needs of the working class and poor.
As a capitalist country we do not need government health care that is socialism I do not want the hard worker to pay for the rest 10%flat tax across the board no government aid foreign or domestic till we are out of debt
If the middle knew how to assert itself the extremes would have never gotten the better of them.
Sounds like a rigidly bad plan
I love when Amy wears her chic black jacket! Great reporting, Amy! ❤
Oh! I love her make up!!! It gives her an air of "je ne sais quoi"!! (Sarc) How shallow are her listeners in the face Amy being a propaganda tool of the dems!!
Lol.simply irresponsibly irresistible. DONATE not fornicate! Amy needs a new pair of shoes!
@@donluisguerra7286 hatchet face Amy's been a CIA asset since before East Timor in 1991... NPR. Typical USA media type. Money GRUBBING Zionists.
@@donluisguerra7286 Agreed. Thankyou for saying this.
@@donluisguerra7286 Lmao Amy is a progressive, not a corporatist Dem like Biden or Hillary
Putting guard rail on rickety rigged system is another nail in the coffin.
So, I haven't heard the oral argument, but others are saying that SCROTA doesn't appear to be buying this. That is not, of course, definitive--consider _Dennis_ and _Haymond,_ though at least they split Kavanaugh from Gorsuch.
This is the end of USA.
What type of Chopper did she ride in to work?? lol... its all good..
Boten blue
Suprema
Cort fraude
Reforms are coming in the Brunson case at the Supreme Court. Docket number 22-380 scheduled for conference in January.
That's the American Way
Does Prof. Tolson engage the youtube comments section for friendly discourse? An ambient temperature explaination of the SCOTUS judges on the "substantive" or "procedural" is helpful for the public. Amy Goodman has it right where I think most people wanting to understand, are going..."wait..what?"
Which reminds me of the whole allegory of the wise men in a dark room trying to determine what is in the room with them.
Necessary and elaborative descriptions can be extremely helpful, but how much is so journalism can explain a room temperature? How much is the temperature of public officials, who should be prepared and considerate of the need for the public to in return document as we are being documented?
How much is a requirement of sAfE public discourse?
Can you please recommend some, court decisions, pre-Scotus public official decisions, reading examples, that will shine some more light that journalists and people who just would like to know, can see the shape of the puzzle and missing pieces?
DN, procedurally are the public prohibited from hearing direct quotes, cadence and tone of public officials from a recording of a live court?
What about live broadcast?
Prof. Tolson, if the public had a voting receipt would it not be a "papers and effects". So how does a person get their own voting receipt?
What might be the complications of a city granting the right to vote to younger naturalized voters or petitioning immigrating or residential aliens, whom are self evident tax payers, the ability to vote? What about asylum seekers who have been or are currently serving our nation?
The right to vote, in, the same place, the people, live and are beholden to the law should be a given. Especially when a votiing document & public schooling location could make known, a plan to stay, and approximate to where.
What procedural challenges would a city and community face?
Prof. Tolson, where might each intial petition be filed? Hyperlinks are fun.
So... I heard your video. I still confused? Is it going to pass, not pass, look like it will pass?
Amy is the 🐐
GEE....WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OUR CORRUPTED SUPREME COURT WILL DO THE RIGHT THING !?
Some but I am not holding my breath.
They might have been scared by public reaction to previous events, second thinking this next move.
the legislator should get rid of all elections and they themselves should choose who they want in all federal, state, and local elections. I hope you get that I am being sarcastic.
Good morning DN
Go algorithm go algorithm go algorithm go
Go algorithm go algorithm go
Go algorithm go algorithm go algorithm go
Go algorithm go algorithm go algorithm go
Go algorithm go algorithm go algorithm go
The Constitution
of the United States
The democracy is the 10 miles of Washington DC dostric of Colombia a foreign corporation own by ENGLAND
United States" is the "District of Columbia" incorporated.
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State" Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785,
Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287
Is it why Washington is called the District of Colombia property of England?.
It may be the devil...or it may be the Lord...but you gotta serve somebody.....bob Dylan.............. GODs WILL HAS NO PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY....jerry nadler
There is no democracy left in America, it ended in 2020. Democrat mafia is spending 36 billion to fund truckers retirement until 2051 . My buddy collects $180.00 a day as a recently retired truck driver. Now we can support him
As Professor Tolson said, here is the entire text of the place in the Constitution at issue in this case:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators."
This seems very straightforward. It is not crazy to interpret this to mean that (absent federal legislation) a State prescribes the "time, place and manner" of electing federal office holders through their elected legislature. That is what this says. A legislature is, by definition, a creature of the constitution that establishes its existence. It cannot exceed the bounds of the constitution that authorizes it to act. In this case, the legislative body exceeded its authority (acted ultra vires) in adopting illegally gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of its governing document (the state constitution). First question presented: does drawing the boundaries of congressional districts mean the same thing as setting rules on the "time place and manner" of voting? Historically states have been doing this when it seems questionable to begin with. Gerrymandering goes to the heart of the exercise of the right to vote - and violates that right. It is not a mere regulation of the time that a person votes, the place where you vote, or the manner by which you cast your ballot. It tells who you can vote for and who you cannot vote for. It herds you into a pen where you have no ability to vote for someone who represents you.
But even if States will continue to run roughshod over the rights of the people to representative government, Congress can stop this by regulating how districts are to be drawn. They can start by doing away with single-member, winner-take-all districts in favor of proportional voting and multi-member districts that allow voters an opportunity to elect representatives that are - well, more representative of them.
In other words, there is a need for Congress to fix this in an honest and fair way. The cynics will say they will not because it is a question of maintaining the horrible left-right divide that allows the left and right to hold onto power in this two-partty system we have. But we are starting to see cracks developing in this system, as with the brave act of Senator Sinema to veer neither right nor left, but to move forward.
Here's one for ya
Save the republic
It is disappointing to see even a law professor looking at what is a LEGAL case as really a POLITICAL one, where you have "conservative" justices versus "liberal" justices taking political positions instead of doing their jobs: following the text of the law (in this case the Eection Clause(es) of the Constitution, interpreting its meaning and applying it to the facts of the case or controversy between two parties who are appearing before the Court. It is fashionable these days to be cynical in general, and towards the SCOTUS in particular to say they are not judges doing their jobs but are in reality a group of political hacks playing games they want to "win" instead of honestly ruling on the points of law presented before them. So, in this case, they are not suppose to be deciding, like some "Super Legislature" what they think the law SHOULD be - and that State courts and governors "should" do this but not that. Their role is to interpret what the constitution says as applied to the facts of this case, which is really fairly straight forward. There is no need for all this hysteria.
JESUSCHRIST OF NAZARETH THE KING OF JEWS THE ONLY WAY TO ESCAPE FROM JUDGMENT DAY.
📜📜2 PETER CHAPTER 3📜📜✍️
I love this theory. Looks like it makes it more fair. Unlike the sketchy things libs have been doing.
Don’t tread on me!
That is why it is important to vote for Biden as it gets us to fascism one step at a time. Incrementalism!
Kill that noise, the republicans brought the case to the supreme court hoping to overturn voter results when they can't win by cheating and gerrymandering. Begone foolish troll
A legit fascist was the only other option.
Fjb
So proud of elon for this patriotic Move
Huh? Did you even watch the video?
It's a foreign bot looky here
So proud of elon for this patriotic Move..
It should be in the states hands as it was in the beginning the federal government should have less and less power
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOW FJB LETS GO BRANDON
🤪