Not Profound

26 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

Deals a blow?

Not really, not practically.

Hold my hand, and I’ll walk you through this.

All it means is that SCOTUS has found that minority-favorable gerrymanders are not an implicit requirement of the Voting Rights Act.

It does not mean that any such districts in existence now will be wiped out, and it does not mean that they will be specifically prohibited in the future.  All it means is that if they’re not drawn, it’s going to be all but impossible for the NAACP et al. to use the Federal judiciary as a weapon to force their existence.

However, they will continue to exist for at least a few more decennial redistricting cycles for two main reasons:

1.  Republican state legislators and black Democrat state legislators want them to exist.

2.  White Democrat state legislators, while they know now that their existence marginally hurts white Democrats, aren’t going to be in a much of a mood to work against their existence, because they’re too scared to tell blacks no.

For my new best friend, in case you’ve bought into the leftist crackpot hysteria about gerrymandering, then I’ll point you back to what I wrote in this space last November.  I’ll make it so easy for you that I’ll blockquote my favorite source, myself, instead of forcing you to click on a link:

NOTE:  The following section was updated on December 17 in accordance with the final Congressional runoffs and recounts complete.

Are you ready to put the leftist hoopla over gerrymandering to bed?  Hold my hand and come with me.

In 2010, the national popular vote for Congressional candidates was 52.2% R 44.6% D.  In 2014, 52.6% R 44.4% D.  Notice how almost the same these results are.

Remember, the 2010 votes were fed into the Congressional maps drawn in 2001 and extant from 2001-2011.  This year’s vote is fed into these great evil Republican gerrymandered maps that are and will be extant from 2011-2021.

So you feed just about the same two party percentage split into two different Congressional district maps, and what do you get?  242 seats in 2010, 247 seats in 2014.  So this great Republican gerrymandered map only results in five more Republican seats using virtually the same popular vote percentages.

Then again, you already put the gerrymandering mania to bed, because you read this space.  Earlier this year, the NYT did a story about a study that several university professors did.  They fed the 2012 Congressional vote, which in raw terms was slightly more Democrat than Republican, into thousands of hypothetical national Congressional districting maps, ranging from the craziest pro-Democrat to the craziest pro-Republican and everything in between.  The researchers found that only a few of the craziest pro-Democrat maps would have resulted in an actual Democrat House majority; all the other maps, meaning most Democrat-favorable maps and all the neutral maps and pro-Republican maps, resulted in a Republican majority.  It also found that the real world map drawn in 2011 is, on the researchers’ relative scale, a moderately pro-Republican map, and not a crazy one.  Which makes sense, because not every state legislature in 2011 was Republican-run, and some Democrat-ones (think:  California and Illinois) did favorable Democrat gerrymanders in those states.  The researchers’ conclusion was that the main problem Democrats have in Congressional elections isn’t gerrymandering, (and they reminded us that gerrymandering’s original purpose was to draw short bus districts for blacks, the Republican benefit fell out of the design accidentally), but the fact that Democrat voters are clumped up in small geographical areas, i.e. big cities.

The moral of this story:  Five seats.  Wow.  Some conspiracy.




Why Would He Bother?

17 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

NYT wants Obama to come up with a creative pseudo-legal pseudo-Constitutional workaround should SCOTUS find the “wrong” way in King v Burwell.

Why should he even bother with this knit picking?  All he has to do is flip SCOTUS the bird.  Who’s going to arrest Baraq Obama for contempt of court?  The FBI that Baraq Obama controls?

He may not even have to do that.  The insurance industry will make sure all the Republican politicians they bought and paid for restores the Federal subsidies if SCOTUS does the “wrong” (i.e. right) thing.  Congress will do it so quickly that they’ll beat Planck Time.  Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on some Congressional legislation that defunds Obama’s executive order immigration amnesty.

There Goes the Judge

9 03 2015


SCOMO transfers Ferguson’s municipal caseload to the State Appellate Court for Eastern Missouri.

Here comes the downhill rolling snowball  — How will this not happen with many other municipalities in the state?  What’s true for Ferguson that invoked this action is also true for a bunch of other municipalities.  I fully expect this to end up with most if not all municipal courts in the state being eliminated, and many municipal police departments being eliminated.  Meaning that the actual municipalities might as well go out of business, though like I said earlier, that would be “fine” with me.

A Three Piece Puzzle

4 03 2015

Washington, D.C.

Two pieces of the puzzle in King v Burwell, whose SCOTUS BJs have just started.

Louisiana Gov. Piyush Jindal, writing in NR:

And here’s where some on the right want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Conventional wisdom in Washington has assumed that, should the Court strike down the subsidies in 37 states under King, states will immediately act to establish their own state-run exchanges — allowing the subsidies to flow once more. Alternatively, Congress might be tempted to pass language extending the subsidies to the federally-run exchange, allowing Obamacare to comply with the Court ruling. That’s a “solution” in search of a problem. If eliminating the subsidies represents a net tax cut, then restoring the subsidies — whether by states creating their own exchanges, Congress passing new legislation, or some combination of the two — would re-impose a sizable tax increase. Americans would pay billions more in higher taxes to fund the newly restored subsidies, making Obamacare that much more entrenched. What self-proclaimed conservative of sound mind would do such a thing? Alternatively, some have talked about enacting a “compromise” that would restore the Obamacare subsidies while reforming some of the law’s new insurance requirements and regulations. But restoring the flow of subsidies means restoring the employer mandate, thus raising taxes. And even if such a “compromise” weakens or eliminates the employer mandate, the Obama administration — to say nothing of the insurance companies themselves — will hardly countenance a repeal of the individual mandate, which restoring the subsidies will only strengthen. So those seeking to restore the flow of subsidies will likely end up having to raise taxes on millions of Americans, in some way, shape, or form.

The emphasis of one given word in this quote is my own addition.

Betsey McCaughey, in the NYP:

Insurance companies will be the biggest losers

Their stock prices have soared since the rollout — Humana up 66 percent; Cigna, 53 percent; Aetna, 52 percent. No wonder: ObamaCare forces the public to buy their policies.

It’s like a law requiring all Americans to buy cars, subsidizing those who can’t pay. That would send automaker stocks skyrocketing, too.

Insurers are expected to haul in over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money over the next decade. No wonder they’re bombarding the Supremes with arguments defending their cozy deal.

The third piece of the puzzle?  Look at the campaign finance reports of a lot of Republicans, and you’re going to find a whole lot of insurance PACs, 527s, if not semi-directly, then funneled through one or two intermediaries.

It’s why the Republican Party in current form is never going to make a serious run at repeal.  At “best,” they’ll just nibble around some of the worst edges.


18 02 2015


Breitbart headline:

Jorge Ramos Warns ‘Latino Voters Will Remember’ Injunction in ’16

Sure, because I’m so scared that a bunch of people that have almost no Electoral College leverage are going to remember a Federal district court injunction in February 2015 when they go to vote in November 2016.

And even if they do care, they’ll probably have two open borders major party nominees to choose from. The classic “win win” situation.

Translated another way:

Jorge Ramos:  You all better think that Hispanics are that damned important, so that you think I’m that important.

Now, where did I put those Bhutanese-American Transgendered Vegetarians?


17 02 2015

Brownsville, Texas

Read his opinion, if you want.

I did, and it just boils down to this:  In this judge’s opinion, the opponents to Obama’s November executive order have a good chance to win their case when this case is heard anywhere in the Federal judiciary during the actual trial level and appellate level proceedings.  This is the standard that judges have to use to decide whether or not to grant injunctions.

Obama is already appealing this injunction to Appeals-5 in New Orleans, and their decision on whether to keep the injunction in place or reverse it could come as early as this afternoon.

News on the Transfer Issue

12 02 2015


State trial level judge finds that DESE has to classify the Normandy Cooperative as “unaccredited” so that transfers can continue.

This will probably go up the judicial ladder, and we better hope that the higher courts reverse this, because this is the only hope for sanity.

Because the bill the General Assembly is working on, in spite of appearances, will allow the transfers to continue.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,041 other followers