Democrat hypocrisy on Gerrymandering

For all the wailing around here about Gerrymandering over the last year, it certainly has gotten quiet as Democrats have far outstripped GOP efforts to gain advantage.

24 thoughts on “Crickets

  1. Your overstatement of who has outstripped whom is noted.

    Many GOP drawn maps are getting tossed by state courts. NY should probably as well.

    You see, Don, unlike those on the right, I can honestly say that gerrymandering is a bipartisan issue. In a BAD way. Those on the right tell the story differently.

    However attempting to balance what the GOP has done, using the same tactics, could be considered a noble cause. It often happens that candidates with D’s after their names get more total votes than those with R’s. But the R’s are able to maintain a legislative majority.

    Dark money has been raised numerous times as well. But in 2020 Dems had an advantage in it. Two wrongs do not make a right, but Dems used the playbook the GOP had been using. And the GOP and its supporters are “How dare they!”.

    Besides, why would those on the left commend Democrats for their gerrymandering (or in NY, JerryNadlering.), when we condemn it on the right? We ain’t the hypocrites. 😁

    Liked by 1 person

    1. And yet they do, see Obama and Holder.

      Gerrymandering has been around since before today’s Democratic and Republican parties.

      But while Republicans were trying to win legislatures, Democrats were stacking courts. The NC ruling on redistricting was 4-3 on party lines.


      1. “The NC ruling on redistricting was 4-3 on party lines.”

        Sure. But how are those judges chosen? Superior Court judges are elected; Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the governor under the same concept of advise and consent as done for SCOTUS.

        The GOP has been in control of the legislature for quite a while and the current Governor is a Democrat. The legislature could have easily ensured judges more amenable to their side if they wanted.

        Sorry, but while there are more D judges then R judges, it seems kind of moot.

        The majority ruled that the districts as drawn were unconstitutional. So why would you have issue with that?


        1. When a judge is seated, he should no longer follow party lines, he should follow the law and let the chips fall where they may.

          That they follow party lines is what I have a problem with.


          1. Unfortunately picking judges is a political appointment. A flaw in the Constitution.

            Lifetime tenure is also a flaw. 10 years would be more than adequate to extend beyond presidential terms.

            Also, that there is no necessity for recusal in conflicts at the SCOTUS level is, again, a flaw.

            Ginny Thomas has consulting clients that also have cases for the Court. Her husband is Clarence Thomas. He never recuses himself and there is no mechanism to require it. Judicial guidelines in general recommend recusal even if just the appearance of conflict of interest is there.

            Sometimes appointees rise above the political arena and surprise or disappoint depending upon your view.

            What is interesting is that for decades appointees are chosen mostly for their stand on abortion and its corollary, guns. Ironically, one issue is about when life begins and the other about best ways to end it.


            Liked by 2 people

          2. Show me where I have criticized one of the ‘conservative’ justices when they sided with the liberals?

            I have disagreed with Roberts on occasion, but I have always explained why I disagreed,


          3. “That they follow party lines is what I have a problem with.”

            And the radicals on SCOCTUS just upheld racially gerrymandered maps in Alabama, even though every other court below them tossed them.

            You better call them both out or you, once again, show how hypocritical you are.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Don’t know the details. But the lower courts all ruled the GOP-drawn maps as unconstitutional. Funny how a 6-3 conservative majority court saw it differently.

            And I already said that the NY maps should probably be tossed. Haven’t seen much on IL or MD. But I do recall saying that MD should stop as well. But until all stop, it isn’t going to much good for the voters who want to choose their representatives and not be chosen by those who may not represent them.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “When a judge is seated, he should no longer follow party lines, he should follow the law “…

            “The majority ruled that the districts as drawn were unconstitutional.”

            Seems to me they did.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “he should follow the law and let the chips fall where they may.”

            Indeed. But that applies to judges with backgrounds from all parties. Your obvious belief is that you are addressing Democratic judges. I could, with the same and probably more, justification be admonishing Republican judges. Especially since Trump did his best to fill the seats with unqualified hacks who could not even get the recommendation of the ABA.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Thanks for sharing. I am pleased to see that the Democrats are fighting fire with fire. About time. New York is being carved up to favor the Democrats; it is about twenty-five years too late. Texas was Gerrymandered to a fare-the-well in similar fashion decades ago by the convicted criminal Tom Delay.

    And, you know what else Democrats are hypocritical about? Money from billionaires. Democratic leaning billionaires overwhelmed their Republican confrères by a wide margin in 2020. Given the criminal state of the GOP, we can expect that to be the case going forward.

    Republicans have constantly blocked election and campaign finance reform. Let’s hope they change their tune as these trends continue. They never put country ahead of party. On these issues, soon they won’t have to.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Democrat hypocrisy on gerrymandering is a sign of weakness. It is a sign that American elites have lost touch with the people.

    The upside is that the people, suddenly, are stronger.


    1. “Democrat hypocrisy on gerrymandering is a sign of weakness.”

      Yet Republican hypocrisy is just fine and dandy.

      You do realize that makes you the doctor of semantics AND the king of hypocrisy.

      “The upside is that the people, suddenly, are stronger”

      Which people? The people you like or ALL people?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Yes, gerrymandering has been with us since day one. A huge flaw in the Constitution.

    Essentially, we are telling our paid legislators that they themselves can decide if they are doing the states’ business well enough to keep their jobs.

    This is like giving students the answers to a test so they can fill in the correct answers and get an “A”.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Districts can be picked with bipartisan panels. It requires a bit more independence from the legislature. It is still in progress in VA since the process is following the protocols.

        But no incentive to do that if all states and both parties don’t agree to implement such methods.

        Gerrymandering was always imperfect until the computer era and big data. Now that lines can be drawn that divide by houses instead of whole neighborhoods it is time to address. Technology is moving faster than we can adapt.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. I know, that was part of the protocol. Which may indicate a flaw in the methodology of the first part, the makeup of the commission, but not the whole thing.

            When you tell legislators that they cannot pick their voters, roadblocks will happen.

            We now have 2 special masters drawing lines. The Court will pick. Not ideal, but better than scrapping the whole thing and starting over.

            Except for Idaho, states with commissions drawing lines instead of legislatures are blue or purple.

            Perhaps when Republican states do the same, more will follow. BTW. NY has a hybrid system similar to ours but without the court being the final arbiter.


            Liked by 1 person

      2. We have had partisan judges since Moby Dick was a minnow. Some grow into the job, some don’t. There are competing theories on the role of Constitutional interpretation. Originalists textualists and living document folks.

        Even Jefferson said you should not expect a child’s clothing should fit him as a man. The original was full of ambiguities and compromises. Rulings have added to the confusion. Amendments are like patches to operating systems. At some point you need a major upgrade. Look how inadequate the First Amendment is when tangling with social media. Or search and seizure with regards to smart phones. Or my bugaboo, the lack of representation due to constituents numbering about 750,000 per legislator. Add in lifetime appointments based on lifespans at the time which were close to half of todays.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s