A conversation with political scientist Seth Masket about Trump, the Constitution, the limits of Bidenomics as a political strategy, and why proportional representation keeps looking better and better
The SCOTUS majority has claimed that gerrymandering is a political issue that the court can't weigh in on. I find that idea to be absurd.
One of the more famous phrases ever to be associated with a SCOTUS decision is "one person, one vote." Extreme gerrymandering makes that impossible. Effectively, it can be seen as resulting in "one person, no vote" and when applied to an entire state it becomes "many people, no vote." Yes, people can still go to the polls and cast ballots, but their votes will be meaningless since the dominant political party has arranged things so that there is effectively zero chance that people living in heavily gerrymandered districts will ever be able to elect a candidate of their choice from the minority party. They are effectively disenfranchised and the SCOTUS majority says that is fine. Personally, I think that would be shocking, except that nothing the current SCOTUS majority does shocks me anymore. The new phrase is: One Republican, one vote. One Democrat, no vote. (Yes, there is Democratic gerrymandering, but for the most part it has not been as extreme as that of the GOP. The idea of racial gerrymandering makes no sense for the GOP, because they are the "White" party and I can't imagine a gerrymandered district of Black Republicans.
I find it strange that I have never heard anyone voice the opinion I offered above. How is that possible? I don't see how anyone who believes in free and fair elections can not object to gerrymandering on the basis of the above argument. Clearly, the SCOTUS SIX are not really in favor of free and fair elections. I don't think there is any question that if the tables were turned across the country and Democrats were benefiting more attitudes among the SCOTUS SIX would adapt. The partisanship has become so blatantly in our faces that the Constitution and well-established norms are increasingly irrelevant. I don't expect SCOTUS justices to be saints and having their decision-making line up generally with the positions of the party of the president that nominated them is not surprising. However, we are now seeing issues before the Court that result in votes by at least five and usually all six that completely ignore the wording of the Constitution and laws. I specify the "wording" because textualists are not supposed to consider the intent of laws, only the words no matter how clear the intent appears to be.
> Joe Biden’s stimulus, labor support, and broadly effective economic policy yielded him “roughly nothing in terms of politics.”
That's because Biden didn't go out and SELL his accomplishments - unlike Trump who sells his "incredible wins" 24x7x365, regardless of the facts.
.... while Elliott takes paternity leave with his wife and new baby.....
The SCOTUS majority has claimed that gerrymandering is a political issue that the court can't weigh in on. I find that idea to be absurd.
One of the more famous phrases ever to be associated with a SCOTUS decision is "one person, one vote." Extreme gerrymandering makes that impossible. Effectively, it can be seen as resulting in "one person, no vote" and when applied to an entire state it becomes "many people, no vote." Yes, people can still go to the polls and cast ballots, but their votes will be meaningless since the dominant political party has arranged things so that there is effectively zero chance that people living in heavily gerrymandered districts will ever be able to elect a candidate of their choice from the minority party. They are effectively disenfranchised and the SCOTUS majority says that is fine. Personally, I think that would be shocking, except that nothing the current SCOTUS majority does shocks me anymore. The new phrase is: One Republican, one vote. One Democrat, no vote. (Yes, there is Democratic gerrymandering, but for the most part it has not been as extreme as that of the GOP. The idea of racial gerrymandering makes no sense for the GOP, because they are the "White" party and I can't imagine a gerrymandered district of Black Republicans.
I find it strange that I have never heard anyone voice the opinion I offered above. How is that possible? I don't see how anyone who believes in free and fair elections can not object to gerrymandering on the basis of the above argument. Clearly, the SCOTUS SIX are not really in favor of free and fair elections. I don't think there is any question that if the tables were turned across the country and Democrats were benefiting more attitudes among the SCOTUS SIX would adapt. The partisanship has become so blatantly in our faces that the Constitution and well-established norms are increasingly irrelevant. I don't expect SCOTUS justices to be saints and having their decision-making line up generally with the positions of the party of the president that nominated them is not surprising. However, we are now seeing issues before the Court that result in votes by at least five and usually all six that completely ignore the wording of the Constitution and laws. I specify the "wording" because textualists are not supposed to consider the intent of laws, only the words no matter how clear the intent appears to be.
I cannot raise the transcript version. Can someone siggest the process? I do not find the transcript icon referenced in the text.