Home » More on that egregiously overreaching Pennsylvania Supreme Court redistricting decision

Comments

More on that egregiously overreaching Pennsylvania Supreme Court redistricting decision — 20 Comments

  1. This isn’t the first time that judges overrode the will of the People. Sometimes (e.g. political congruence “=” or selective exclusion) it is welcomed. Sometimes judges will even override human rights and scientific evidence (e.g. selective-child) when rationalized by the twilight faith. The establishment of the Pro-Choice Church, selective, opportunistic, and congruent, has clear and progressive consequences.

    That said, gerrymandering occurs in several ways, including taxpayer-subsidized schemes (i.e. redistributive change) that normalizes color (i.e. racism) and sex (i.e. sexism) diversity. Americans are losing our nation one baby, one child, one politically incongruent (i.e wrong color, sex, or gender) citizen, at a time.

  2. old hat…
    read what soviets did in countries they were allowed to operate in..
    sheesh…

    its like yuour discovering 100 year old things..

    on another note
    initial analysis has been outright confirmed and at least two Russian Su-57s have been forward-deployed to Khmeimim Air Base in western Syria. Satellite imagery dated February 23rd, 2018 shows two of the aircraft parked on the base’s tightly packed fixed-wing tactical aircraft ramp.

  3. artfldgrs:

    Again, you make some unwarranted assumptions.

    The one you’re making here is one you’ve made before on other posts, which is that if something is written about because it’s in the news, it means the person writing or commenting is shocked, shocked! that this is happening and believes nothing like it has ever happened before.

    It’s not a correct assumption.

  4. From Progressing America:

    Since we know that progressives don’t tell the truth about anything, then we have to start from square one.

    Why this is important, is progressives have long linked judicial activism to Marbury as the home of every scheme they’ve devised, but the more I look into it, the less I can see this is true.

    And if Marbury is not the source of the problem, then we need to identify the real cause. You don’t stop cancers with flu medicines and bandaids. /

    An interesting thing occurs if you look into some of the past court rulings and how/why they either reference or cite Marbury.

    For clarity, I use “reference” to mean that the judges are aware of Marbury, they are talking about Marbury, but it doesn’t necessarily have any direct bearing and its not being used to move the ball down the field.

    I use “cite”, on the other hand, in the context as how Marbury is used in the case Cooper v. Aaron: they cited Marbury as a direct order of precedent for their current action in the case.(My use of cite/reference may or may not be how it is legally used)

    ok – now it gets interesting..
    maybe neo can shed light?

    Now, progressives tell us today that Marbury is so important, it’s such a pinnacle, it granted all of these wondrous powers and it even delivered a new loaf of bread to boot. But then why did the courts for so many years merely look at it as some compartmentalized mandamus case with no other real context? Take for example the 1838 case of Kendall v. United States and others; Mississippi v. Johnson (1866), Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout (1807), Kendall v. Stokes (1838), United States v. Schurz (1880), and Poindexter v. Greenhow (1885). In some cases, such as Insurance Company v. Comstock (1872) and Reeside v. Walker (1850), Marbury is nothing more than a footnote at the end of the decision, as opposed to a more central part of the opinion/dissent reasoning.

    You will notice by the dates above, that I focused in on cases that existed prior to the perversion of progressivism. Prior to basically 1900. I am sure there are other court cases, but you get the point.

    So whats the punchline?

    Some of these cases are thousands and taken together tens of thousands of words long – I haven’t read all of these word for word. However, it does stand to reason that we have a huge gap between 1803 and the 1930s before the courts truely start becoming this out of control monstrosity.

    now, i never hear anyone talk of these things in contect with the kind of thing going on here and judges becomeing law makers..

    but this is about how it works, and started, and not about entertaining ideas thrown out to see if any stick to the wall like last nights underwear…

    Marbury wasn’t decided in 1929!! So why the gap? Why does this over 100 year gap exist between when the courts supposedly went out of control, to when they finally decided to go out of control? Shouldn’t this big black hole gravity-well be nonexistent? Shouldn’t it be 1805 and 1809 when all of this is occurring, and not 1958? None of what the progressives assert makes any sense at all when closely examined, particularly with a calendar in hand.

    I have said more than once, they will put laws in place and that will seem innocuous… then decades later, unopposed, and with full time behind it, the statute becomes real,

    you can see it most easy IF you go through and start with the ladies stuff but especially the word “Gender” before a certain year, gender was never used as it was not clear enough. the term sex was used

    then you can see in law gender and sex interchange… ok find, as sex was one of the defs so it seemed like nothing… but then suddenly, 20-30 years later, we are starting to use the OTHER meanings of gender – ergo the whole wedding, church, etc.. stuff came out

    well, you guys are basically discussing the changes made by this period and these cases, but other than myself, i doubt anyone would bring up marbury… even the lawyers.

    probably because studying communism and progressivism is different than studying laws… first of all, you cant start with the ideas you start as default with others.. (good intentions, honesty, etc… all those are secondary to power).

    ….the first case that actually cites Marbury in some meaningful manner is the case Mugler v. Kansas. (1887)

    Marbury was stuck in the mandamus box for 84 years? Yes, Mr. Progressive, that Marbury case is such a pinnacle of judicial activism!


    Isn’t it interesting? Everybody wants to be limited by and to the Constitution in the earlier years.

    Now I can only imagine that some will reply “Yes, but, that’s only because the courts did not at first realize what they truely had on their hands.”

    Is that so? Or is it that the progressives went on a treasure hunt way after the fact for anything that they could take out of context, to justify their usurpations?

    I lean strongly toward the second.

    so do i, as i also know the progressives are so smart they are idiots, who think communism is a friend and so, have let that and outside states to them be a friend helping, to the outside state, a way in to change your opposition

    anyway
    who would bother to study where this stuff comes from?
    what for?
    not like they will let you write the book after its done

    and it will be done
    nothing is stopping it all, just making the road bumpy

  5. maybe i am referring to the average person reading, not writing… does it matter? not like anyone gets anywhere unbound to the past moorings… how would they know?

  6. How is it worse than selected, not elected, these so called representatives of the people.

  7. Have the courts always been this bad as covert partisans and legislators?

    Ever since Justice Roberts wrote that convoluted opinion for Obamacare, reason and the Constitution have seemed to me minor formalities to be overcome in legislating from the bench.

    I imagine for earlier conservatives Roe v. Wade was much the same.

  8. It is a huge mistake to elect judges. Elections invite politics, which should have no place in a courtroom.

    Maybe artificial intelligence could do better.

  9. Cases like this are always annoying. I sometimes wish we had followed the British system a little more closely. Parliament is sovereign.

    Now, I don’t support the ability of a simple majority to change the constitution, but I believe courts ought to show deference to elected representatives. Courts shouldn’t be bending over backwards to make more work for themselves. They’re busy enough as it is.

    It took a Civil War to establish parliamentary sovereignty. Looking at America today, a lot of people are complaining about Trump, and I understand. But the biggest systemic problem is the legal system. If we fight another civil war, I suspect it will be over some act of judicial review, not all the feelings Trump has hurt.

  10. The Leftist alliance and Deep State have mile long blackmail and goodie lists on the judges (all lawyers remember) and Congress critters.

    Don’t worry, they got it guaranteed that a certain percentage will “rule” in the favor they were told to rule in (like Roberts).

    For example, it just so happens that one of the judges for Roe v Wade, had a daughter that needed an abortion. How he was put on the pivotal precedent judgment without anyone figuring it out… and why didn’t he recuse himself…

    The American people were told that their representatives were elected based upon the popular will. I say they were selected, not elected.

    The Demoncrats pretend that election rules matter and the Republicans pretend that election results matter. Everyone will be happy so long as we continue this game of illusion… until the war breaks out at least.

  11. I’m sorry, the Democrats have an election to win. Never forget that, when they got their filibuster -proof Senate, the DOJ went after Ted Stevens with false information and hid evidence that was in his favor, costing him the election in Alaska. Then, they stole the Franken election in Minnesota. So, when they come up with a plan, everyone does their job. Hence, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, they’ll teach those rubes to vote for Trump. They aren’t going to take a chance on that happening again.

  12. Another contemptible, anti-republican example of what Scalia called a “Judicial Putsch” [Obergfell]…

  13. These judges need to be removed from the bench, and placed on a rail, covered in tar & feathers.
    That is the just reward for their acts.

  14. Posts like these are extremely frustrating. The real question is what are we going to do about this? We can tut-tut all we want about these judges but if/when the Dems win the House they will impeach the President and tear the country apart.

    We are in a civil war. The Left only has the will to rule. They do not accept the results of elections when the other side wins. They will use whatever tools are available to them to impose their ideas on the rest of us. If they don’t control the Congress or the Presidency then they rule through the bureaucracy and the courts.

    The question above is genuine. I am asking you Neo to apply your considerable intellect to figure out ways in which common people like me can fight back. All I can figure out now is to vote and to contribute to political candidates that seem to support my views. I do not have enough money to sway elections but I know that if enough people like me contribute we can affect things.

    If/when tyranny comes to the USA it will most likely come from the judiciary. To paraphrase Stalin, I do not care what laws you pass so long as I get to say what they mean. We are one Supreme court judge away from this. Actually, in many respects we are there. All it takes is for Anthony Kennedy to get up on the left side of his bed to do away with any of our rights.

    So, what to do about it?

  15. We are in a civil war. The Left only has the will to rule.

    People were warned about the next civil war 10+ years ago. They didn’t care back then nor do they care about it now. Not enough to kill the Left at least.

    It is a good or necessary thing that US patriots have learned to hate the Left. Not enough however. They should control that hate, instead of the other way around. The next thing they should learn is the fear of the elohim.

    So, what to do about it?

    I don’t care what the rest of you humans and mortals decide to do, but I’m just going to bypass the authorities entirely. They only have as much power as US patriots give them to begin with. The slaves think they are free in slavery 3.0

  16. The real question is what are we going to do about this? … (How can) common people like me can fight back. All I can figure out now is to vote and to contribute to political candidates that seem to support my views. I do not have enough money to sway elections but I know that if enough people like me contribute we can affect things.
    skeptic (1:08 pm)

    Most people who have thought about such matters as much as you have probably already know how to fight back. What 99 out of 100 of them lack is the will to do it.

    “Politics is downstream of culture.”–Andrew Breitbart

    Start by doing your bit to clean up the culture. If you’re a believer or a seeker but not a weekly worshiper, now is the time to become one. Worship with a congregation that lives the values this country is losing sight of, honesty, respecting those who do productive work no matter how lowly, rendering personal assistance as appropriate to the less fortunate, spurning those who covet their neighbor’s goods, respecting parents and other elders, and chastity. If you’re an atheist, be ready to defend those values just mentioned without recourse to God. (If you can’t, then as a notorious atheist quipped, “examine your premises, one or more of them may be wrong”.) Then, congregate with like-minded ‘values atheists’ if you can find any.

    Invite others to join you for weekly worship or for the atheists whose atheism has persisted this far, meet weekly with fellow values atheists.

    Only when you have accomplished that will you be ready to begin grassroots politicking. Volunteer. Learn. Meet other grassroots volunteers. Network. Walk a precinct. Your couple of hours a week (or month) of walking swing precincts for a campaign or county party committee is more valuable than donating money to hire ‘mercenaries’ to do it as a paid-for chore. (It takes about $25/hr to hire a minimum-wage precinct walker.)

  17. Micha Elyi Says:
    February 27th, 2018 at 5:31 pm

    One of the reasons why I don’t jump on the blame Peterson or Israel band wagon is one of the commandments from Moses’ god. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    I think I already pissed off quite the number of elohim, before I forgot everything. No reason to add another one to the list just yet.

    The Alt Right exists to fight the Leftist alliance. Although I don’t agree with the tactical or strategic effectiveness of all the plans used in the various factions. And they have quite the number of factions, often with mutually exclusive ideologies.

    The Leftist alliance is the same way, but they somehow find a way to get the Gaystapo to work with the gay hating black inner city Panthers.

  18. Pingback:Donald Trump's achievements won't last if Congress does not act

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>