Scalia's death already having positive outcomes: Court lets NC ruling stand

[buckshot24]

Who is this "you" that you're referring to? I don't live in NC. I care very little about how they redistrict or what system they use since absent national proportional representation it's educated guesswork and a moving target anyway. In your hypothetical 51/49 situation the 10R/3D election results from 2014 are one standard deviation from the expected "perfect" results. Which mirrors the skewed results from the other direction in 2008 when it was 8-5 Democrat representation. I realize you think your side is "owed" the control of the government but that's your problem to deal with, not reality's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...esentatives_elections_in_North_Carolina,_2008

If he'll take that deal for California and New York, I'd be in.

 

[pcgeek11]

What Biden said in 1992:

Biden's statement at the time was emphatic. "It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," the then-Judiciary Committee chairman said.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it," Biden continued. "Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Hypocrite much.

 

[Darwin333]

Wait, one whole "expert"?? And based on his sole opinion you are saying that its a good thing a man died before the dirt has even settled? Come on now, let the damn dirt settle.

 

[trenchfoot]

What Biden said in 1992:

Biden's statement at the time was emphatic. "It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," the then-Judiciary Committee chairman said.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it," Biden continued. "Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Hypocrite much.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. :thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

What Biden said in 1992:

Biden's statement at the time was emphatic. "It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," the then-Judiciary Committee chairman said.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it," Biden continued. "Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Hypocrite much.

The opportunity never arose. Let's see what the Repubs do when the situation is real. It was also June instead of February so there's ample time to evaluate Obama's nominee before the political season really starts. Roberts, for example, was confirmed in 2 months.

Officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill noted that Mr. Biden had also said in the 1992 speech that he would support a future Supreme Court nominee by Mr. Bush as long as the president consulted with the Senate or chose a moderate. Mr. Biden made that observation as he discussed how the confirmation process could be changed “in the next administration,” should he remain as chairman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

It's highly unlikely that Obama will name anybody who doesn't fit the definition of moderate, obviously not what Repubs want at all.

 

[pcgeek11]

The opportunity never arose. Let's see what the Repubs do when the situation is real. It was also June instead of February so there's ample time to evaluate Obama's nominee before the political season really starts. Roberts, for example, was confirmed in 2 months.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

It's highly unlikely that Obama will name anybody who doesn't fit the definition of moderate, obviously not what Repubs want at all.

It doesn't matter if the opportunity arose or not. His feeling on the matter was quite clear. He left No Doubts from the quoted statements I listed.

June instead of February, 4 whole months difference. That still leaves about 7 months. That isn't a reason, read what he said, not what you wished he had said.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it,"

"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

The political season is underway Now. So Biden says we should wait until the Campaign is over.

 

[pcgeek11]

Officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill noted that Mr. Biden had also said in the 1992 speech that he would support a future Supreme Court nominee by Mr. Bush as long as the president consulted with the Senate or chose a moderate. Mr. Biden made that observation as he discussed how the confirmation process could be changed “in the next administration,” should he remain as chairman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us...s-in-1992.html

That is what he says Now. That is Not what he said Then. Point to some video or a news article with valid quotes where he refined his statement back in 1992...

He is just denying it now because it shows the hypocrisy for all to see.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/20/politics/north-carolina-redistricting-supreme-court/index.html

The Supreme Court late Friday declined to put on hold a lower court ruling that invalidated congressional redistricting maps in North Carolina.

Early this month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that maps for two districts were unconstitutional, and ordered the state to redraw their lines within two weeks. The panel said that race played an impermissible role in the drawing of the districts.

One election law expert believes that before Justice Antonin Scalia's death the Court would have granted the stay.

ahh the use of race is only allowed if the left does it, otherwise its using it is bad.

 

[michal1980]

The opportunity never arose. Let's see what the Repubs do when the situation is real. It was also June instead of February so there's ample time to evaluate Obama's nominee before the political season really starts. Roberts, for example, was confirmed in 2 months.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

It's highly unlikely that Obama will name anybody who doesn't fit the definition of moderate, obviously not what Repubs want at all.

Biden is spinning and flip flopping allover the place now that his guy can nominate someone.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Are you admitting that you used the 2012 vote inappropriately?

I used the numbers I knew of. I just looked up some more. You don't need to look for patterns when you can see the whole scam at work.

2012
Seats won: 234R/201D
Vote: 47.6%/48.8% (R's lost)
Representation: 70%/30%

2014
Seats won: 247R/188D
Vote: 50.7%/44.9%
Representation: 74%/24%

Edit: My math is wrong wrong, wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

I used the numbers I knew of.

Did you use them inappropriately or not?

I just looked up some more. You don't need to look for patterns when you can see the whole scam at work.

2012
Seats won: 234R/201D
Vote: 47.6%/48.8% (R's lost)
Representation: 70%/30%

Representation is only 53.8% R's and they lost 8 seats that year. Not crazy out of proportion. We live in a republic, not a democracy. These things happen. Did Bush gerrymander the 2000 election?

2014
Seats won: 247R/188D
Vote: 50.7%/44.9%
Representation: 74%/24%

That is only 56.8% representation. This is well within norms of the elections I showed you in my prior post.

Unless you are willing to admit that dems gerrymandered to get disproportionate representation in their states you've got nothing.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Guess what, sparky? The county in OH where I grew up (the county due east of the county where Cleveland is) got combined with a county due west of Cleveland. The 2 counties were connected by a thin region going through the county due south of Cleveland. Why? Because the county that I grew up in was red and the county that we got combined with (much larger population) was solid blue. The county due north of us (where we should've been combined with) was marginally red. End result was that my county got swallowed up. So, dear boy, your precious dems have done it as well. I don't like this any more than you do, but it's politics Both sides play the gave, which sucks.

But I know you. All you're going to say is something to the effect of, 'but, but, but, you're side is worse! So that makes me ok!'

Those majority minority districts are created entirely to keep those minorities from potentially swinging any good clean and wholesome majority majority districts away from the Republicans.

NC went 50.6%/48.4% Romney/Obama in 2012. Tell me how the fuck you work a 10R/3D congressional split from that without some serious underhandedness.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Well shit, yeah, that's what happens when I do math before coffee. I guess the aggregate isn't as far out of line as I was thinking.

 

[buckshot24]

Well shit, yeah, that's what happens when I do math before coffee. I guess the aggregate isn't as far out of line as I was thinking.

I know what you did because I did the same thing at first and got the same number.:thumbsup:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I know what you did because I did the same thing at first and got the same number.:thumbsup:

Let's have coffee.

Edit: Allright, let it never be said that a Gonad can't change his mind and math is a good way to make that happen. If I had done it right the first time and saw that both sides were basically cheating their way to a *relatively* fair distribution it would have dropped my blood pressure over the issue right there.

Still don't like it and still think the courts need to step in and keep things tighter on both sides.

God I feel so dirty now.

 

[SP33Demon]

I have a career. I probably already pay 40% taxes and I'd rather that money go to people, roads, medical care, research then blowing up brown people all around the world.

Would love for you to show us the math on how you're paying 40% income tax already. Either you're stupid or you're trolling, because another 10% for those paying 30+ = 50+ for you.

 

[glenn1]

Would love for you to show us the math on how you're paying 40% income tax already. Either you're stupid or you're trolling, because another 10% for those paying 30+ = 50+ for you.

He didn't say income. 39.6% top rate plus another 15.3% self-employment tax (or employee portion of SSI/Medicare taxes if you're not). Plus depending on state you're looking at up to 13.3% top income rate (California of course) plus high sales taxes and you're at well over half your income gone to the tax man.

 

[Perknose]

I have a career. I probably already pay 40% taxes and I'd rather that money go to people, roads, medical care, research then blowing up brown people all around the world.

Would love for you to show us the math on how you're paying 40% income tax already. Either you're stupid or you're trolling, because another 10% for those paying 30+ = 50+ for you.

40% taxes [total] /= 40% income tax. Reading comprehension FTW.

From http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the well above average US citizen, 2005 - 53.2% *

Total tax percentage potentially paid by the well above average US citizen, 2013 est. - 58.5% *


* The total average tax paid is closer to 43%, since the figures above do not distinguish between taxes on gross and net income, nor do they adjust for tax planning and many other factors. Note also that the Tax Foundation's numbers are closer to 30% for the actual "average" US citizen, although items like inflation, employer's share of Social Security and Medicare, and various fee estimates are not included to the best of our knowledge.

A partial list of the various ways in which citizens of the US are taxed:

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Deficit spending and debt servicing (Fiscal 2011 state and local debt per capita was $9184)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inflation
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax (Spirits, wine and beer)(From zero per gallon in Vermont to $34.22 in Washington for spirits)
Local Income Tax
Lottery (Fiscal 2011 per capita average was $59)
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare and Medicaid Taxes
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax (Cell phone state and local tax rates in 2013 range from 1.85% in Oregon to 18.67% in Nebraska)
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge, Tunnel and Road Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

 

[jackstar7]

Like being a legal citizen with no felonies?






OH SHIT! HE WENT THERE!!

You're a small government guy, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

He didn't say income. 39.6% top rate plus another 15.3% self-employment tax (or employee portion of SSI/Medicare taxes if you're not). Plus depending on state you're looking at up to 13.3% top income rate (California of course) plus high sales taxes and you're at well over half your income gone to the tax man.

Which applies to the financial elite in only a superficial way given much lower tax rates on the way they earn their incomes.

Nobody has suggested raising taxes on earned income.

 

[Jhhnn]

40% taxes [total] /= 40% income tax. Reading comprehension FTW.

From http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

A lot of those taxes fade to insignificance for the financial elite while being real burdens for working people.

 

[werepossum]

Not many actually paid the 90% rate. I think it was just a handful of people

Agreed. I'm amazed they somehow avoid the amt but a couple with two decent incomes get hit with the amt.

Can't you see the square. I see a square. That's what would happen.

I think the most effective way is how some states have Citizens do it. I believe they select similar to a jury pool. Set them in some room with maps & population data. Obviously someone who works in Politics or has worked on an election committee or similar is exempt.

At the face of it, that sounds awesome. In practice, it might be difficult. How would you handle people outside the capital city? I think in practice you'd have to pre-divide it into areas within the state, then have the districts within each subdivision drawn by those people and then have a multi-judge panel approve it.

Let's have coffee.

Edit: Allright, let it never be said that a Gonad can't change his mind and math is a good way to make that happen. If I had done it right the first time and saw that both sides were basically cheating their way to a *relatively* fair distribution it would have dropped my blood pressure over the issue right there.

Still don't like it and still think the courts need to step in and keep things tighter on both sides.

God I feel so dirty now.

We've all been there. Kudos for admitting it.

What Biden said in 1992:

Biden's statement at the time was emphatic. "It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," the then-Judiciary Committee chairman said.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat would be able to fill it," Biden continued. "Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way (and it is) action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Hypocrite much.

Agreed, the Democrats were doing the same damned thing, even at an earlier date. The two major parties really are two faces of the same coin. But that granted, at some point we have to get beyond "they both do it" into good government. I submit that nominations are an excellent place to start. In today's world, I see no reason why any nomination, even one as powerful and potentially society-changing (society-wrecking?) as a SCOTUS justice, should take longer than six to nine months to vet, debate, and vote up or down. Of course, personally I believe that lack of appellate experience should be an automatic disqualifier; obviously it takes a lot longer to decide whether someone will fairly and reasonably interpret the law if that person has never before been in that position. Obviously politics will play a major role during an election year, but especially for a SCOTUS justice politics are always going to play a very strong role. If anything, an election year might help keep some of them a bit more honest and/or answerable to the people they nominally represent.

 

[buckshot24]

A partial list of the various ways in which citizens of the US are taxed:

Don't forget the ACA mandate "tax" if you don't buy insurance.

 

[Perknose]

Don't forget the ACA mandate "tax" if you don't buy insurance.

It's not a bug tax, it's a feature!

 

[werepossum]

It's not a bug tax, it's a feature!

lol

Isn't that kind of a necessary evil though? If we make insurance companies cover everyone, then we have to have features to force people to buy their products before they get seriously ill. Hey, I'd love nothing better than to go free market, I just don't see any way it can work given the sometimes extremely high cost of medical care and intrinsic human nature.