The Dems would have held the House if not for the gerrymander struck down there by Cuomo appointed republican judges.
With the cast of characters we have in the House and Senate it’s probably better to have gridlock than anything that either chamber or party would enact.
People might be motivated to elect better characters to Congress if there was an expectation they'd actually do something.
yes but DeS turned it up in Florida. The legislature drew maps that the courts likely wouldn't pass and then DeS drew his own that the legislature rubber stamped and are likely to be thrown out, just after the election A federal panel clears the way for a lawsuit challenging Florida's congressional redistricting map | WUSF Public Media As Florida Republicans added four U.S. House seats in Tuesday’s elections, a panel of federal judges refused to toss out a lawsuit that alleges a congressional redistricting plan is “intentionally racially discriminatory.” The plan, which Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed through the Legislature during an April special session, was used in the elections amid constitutional challenges in federal and state courts. In a 2-1 decision Tuesday, a panel of judges rejected a request by the DeSantis administration to dismiss the federal case, though it dismissed DeSantis as a named defendant. The lawsuit alleges the redistricting plan is unconstitutional because it improperly reduced the chances of Black candidates being elected in districts in North Florida and the Orlando area. .................................................. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit is pending in Leon County circuit court that alleges the changes to Congressional District 5 violate a 2010 state constitutional amendment that set standards for redistricting. Similar things occurred in 4 other states and the USSC refused to remedy them before the election. This is how the pubs gained control of the house. If we want to be honest, this is the only reason that the pubs gained control of the house Maps in Four States Were Ruled Illegal Gerrymanders. They’re Being Used Anyway. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Since January, judges in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio have found that Republican legislators illegally drew those states’ congressional maps along racial or partisan lines, or that a trial very likely would conclude that they did. In years past, judges who have reached similar findings have ordered new maps, or had an expert draw them, to ensure that coming elections were fair. But a shift in election law philosophy at the Supreme Court, combined with a new aggressiveness among Republicans who drew the maps, has upended that model for the elections in November. This time, all four states are using the rejected maps, and questions about their legality for future elections will be hashed out in court later. The immediate upshot, election experts say, is that Republicans almost certainly will gain more seats in midterm elections at a time when Democrats already are struggling to maintain their bare majority. David Wasserman, who follows congressional redistricting for the Cook Political Report, said that using rejected maps in the four states, which make up nearly 10 percent of the seats in the House, was likely to hand Republicans five to seven House seats that they otherwise would not have won. ........................ “We’re seeing a revolution in courts’ willingness to allow elections to go forward under illegal or unconstitutional rules,” Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the U.C.L.A. School of Law and the director of its Safeguarding Democracy Project, said in an interview. “And that’s creating a situation in which states are getting one free illegal election before they have to change their rules.” Behind much of the change is the Supreme Court’s embrace of an informal legal doctrine stating that judges should not order changes in election procedures too close to an actual election. In a 2006 case, Purcell v. Gonzalez, the court refused to stop an Arizona voter ID law from taking effect days before an election because that could “result in voter confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.”
To do anything beneficial to the majority (not just the fringes) both sides would have to compromise. There is no willingness in either side to do this.
I agree. If that is their focus, and it probably will be, and not proposed solutions to what they’ve incessantly bitched about - inflation, immigration, supply chain, etc. - they’ll pay a price in 2024.
Florda, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio. 4 of the 5 ruled illegal but allowed to stand until after the election. see post above this one
I'm okay with gridlock if that is the best we can do but not okay with HoR going after IRS, FBI, DOJ for doing their job. It would seem that their goal is to push a lot of key people to leave those org's and others to just ask why bother
As I said, nuke the filibuster, and you'll find more willingness to actually compromise and get stuff done.
You have far too much faith in the Florida Supreme Court. Four of the seven are DeSantis appointees. They're going to find some excuse for not striking his maps down. The courts of old are gone. Today, they're just another political institution. Add in Texas too.
Nuking the filibuster would do little to nothing to encourage compromise in this environment. It would however, enable a majority to become a tyrannical majority. Would you support nuking the filibuster if the Republicans held a 55-45 majority with Ted Cruz as Majority Leader? The only way out is for both sides to neuter their fringes.
De Santis carried the state with 60% of the vote. Assuming people who voted for him also voted for the Rep candidate for the House it would be hard to draw any district maps that would have varied much in the results.
The crazy should start with a Biden impeachment, just to show how easy it is to bring bull shit charges.
