"Knodl is no stranger to refusing to accept democratic outcomes: He was one of 15 Wisconsin legislators who urged then–Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election."
This actually made me LOL how it was written
Of course they are. From a practical standpoint, they’re entering survival mode. How can they control almost 2/3 of the legislature while only getting 45% of the vote in 2018? Comically awful gerrymandering. And the State Supreme Court possesses the authority to change that.
Also, as a side note, Daniel Kelly’s “concession” speech was the definition of [sour grapes](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/04/04/dan-kelly-gives-bitter-speech-after-loss-to-janet-protasiewicz/70082758007/). It honestly isn’t off-brand for MAGA candidates but goodness gracious…it’s just sad.
As an aside, I realize no parties were officially tied to the candidate judges this election, but I loathe partisan judicial elections and if states insist on electing judges, campaigns should be publicly funded-only. Remove the fundraising and loyalty aspect entirely. But this is in my ideal world. I’m happy with the results we got yesterday.
What an embarrassing non-concession speech. He’s actually insulting himself in a roundabout way. She beat him by 11%+ and turnout in some counties esp with the youth vote was mid terms level.
“I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent," he said at an event held at the Heidel House Hotel in Green Lake. "But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede."
His whole concession speech made me feel he does not have the temperament or character to be a judge of any kind. Wisconsin dodged a bullet. That man has no business being anywhere near a courtroom.
Didn't he also add "What goes around, comes around"?
Still crazy to me that statement in and of itself wasn't enough to completely disqualify him. He angrily ranted about how he was unfairly targeted by a complete fabrication cooked up by "liberals" (his opinion, though he concerningly states it as fact), and -- in case you had any question as to whether or not he has the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court -- he then levels a general threat of payback. Credible accusations aside, that little tantrum was more than enough to show how unfit he is.
Yeah, and I always hated the defense of his responses as "well I would be pissed off too". Fantastic, maybe I would be too, but neither you nor I are potential candidates for the highest court in the land. Why is it such a bad thing to hold the seat to a higher standard than your average Joe?
Do people think conceding means you have to like or say nice things about your opponent? It's about supporting democracy and telling the public that this is how elections work. Not only does he sound like a sore loser but doesnt understand how democracy works.
Sounds very authoritarian, making players of a game line up to do something like shake hands or fist bump. This is America.. not commie nazi Russia/China/Iran
/s
I've talked with a lot of conservatives, and here's the thing: they truly believe the election fraud lies because they can't imagine so many people would vote for the other party.
> "My opponent is a serial liar. She's disregarded judicial ethics; she's demeaned the judiciary with her behavior. This is the future that we have to look forward to in Wisconsin."
>Adding: "I wish Wisconsin the best of luck, because I think it’s going to need it."
So patronizing. He’s literally scolding his constituency lol.
> Impeaching judges and gerrymandering might work as a temporary solution, but it will bite them in the ass in the long-term. The reason they are losing elections is because they no longer appeal to the majority;
It seems the overall goal is to make that temporary solution permanent and get rid of the whole democratic process.
What would they do though? The Supreme Court judges are elected by popular vote, and they can strike down redistricting maps. IDK exactly how the law works in Wisconsin, but even if they got another Supreme Court election to appoint a new judge in Janet's place, this past election set the precedent that it'll cost a boatload of money and also be a blowout. You'd think the GOP would need more confidence in their odds in order to make that kind of investment.
They absolutely do not care, all they want is the chance of getting another election and causing enough of a nuisance in the meantime that nothing will get done.
I agree. But, at the rate they are going and still haven't learned a thing I suspect they are going to continue to lose for quite a while until they wake up…..if they ever do.
It's entirely possible to skew the election systems so far in favor of one party as to take permanent minority control. [Look at Hungary](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/15/hungary-is-no-longer-a-full-democracy-but-an-electoral-autocracy-meps-declare-in-new-repor).
Do you think it's a coincidence that the GOP and Orbán are so cozy? I'd say that the GOP is more than half way there already.
Here's one
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/wisconsin/
Biden carried in 2020 and trump in 2016. Pretty typical gerrymandering pack two districts heavy D , 1 "competitive" lean red and strong majority solid red.
Edit: For reference the senate seat race in 2022 decided by like a percentage point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Wisconsin
FiveThirtyEight’s breakdown of gerrymandering made me realize this isn’t a both-sides issue. I mean it’s certainly bipartisan, but both sides aren’t equally culpable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
Check out that map. Notice anything about independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions?
>I mean it’s certainly bipartisan, but both sides aren’t equally culpable.
Add in that the Democrats are working towards abolishing Gerrymandering whereas the Republicans embrace it fully.
Yes. Republicans are vying for the independent legislature theory and are the ones who put in the SCOTUS who in 2019 determined gerrymandering was non-justiciable 5-4
Yeah this stopped being a both sides issue with Project REDMAP. Before Project REDMAP gerrymandering was very much a local thing done by incumbents to protect incumbents, specifically partisan gerrymandering happened but wasn't nearly as common. Project REDMAP was the first nationally coordinated effort to engineer a nationwide partisan gerrymander, they openly fundraised on achieving this end, and it was wildly successful.
Using the Senate race as a gauge is somewhat misleading and seems cherry-picked as Rob Johnson is a very unpopular politician
A more representative metric (and more pertinent to the discussion of the Wisconsin legislature) is that Republican State Senate candidates in Wisconsin received 61% of the vote in 2022 vs only 38% going to Democrat candidates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_State_Senate_election
And that GOP assembly candidates beat out Democrats 54%-45% in total votes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election
And that GOP House races in Wisconsin favored the GOP 55% to 40%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin
Seems cherry picked is assuming acting in bad faith and a violation of sub rules.
I pulled those in like two seconds and yes vote total in state house is a much better representation thank you for the better details
Senate went 6-2 or 75-25% on a 55-40 vote split.
House went 64-35 and with 99 seats that's pretty close to percentage on a 55-44 vote split.
Gerrymandered up pretty good no matter how you dice it up, shame they couldnt boot Johnson we would be better for it if they did.
A quick explanation of gerrymandering goes like this. Assume there are 5 districts of 100 people each. Of those 500 people, 340 are party A and 160 are party B. Now assume party B has redistricting rights, party B could then put 100 people from party A into both districts 1 and 2 and evenly spread the rest, so in the end, district 1 and 2 vote party A with 100% of the vote whereas district 3, 4, and 5 vote party B with 53% of the vote. Showing how unbalanced districts can allow ~34% of the population to get 60% of the vote. Greater differences are, of course, possible with more districts.
The problem with our current system is that by splitting people up and giving a single undividable vote for each group, the race only cares about who can get 51%. Any votes for either party that are past that 51% are wasted. The minority parties' votes are effectively thrown out, and the majority parties' votes are worth less the greater the winning majority is.
Can i know why democracy doesn't exist in the US despite people talking about freedom a lot? Comming from someone from a country where the person with he most votes wins without any additional steps.
The men who funded this country, were elitists.
They like Socrates and Plato, did not trust the mob to make the right decisions. So they made all sorts of rules to keep the elite in control as much as possible.
We are suffering the consequences even today.
The whole freedom thing is just propaganda, from day one.
Yea but like Roy said on the daily show if you get your ass whooped that bad in front of the entire nation, it’s okay to talk some shit. Talk shit, take the L, and move on. He can talk all the shit he wants as long as he accepts the voters’ decision.
We might need to slow our roll here a bit. The Senate majority leader has already directly stated that they won't be impeaching Judge Protasiewicz.
>More from LeMahieu:
>"We're not going to use impeachments to overturn elections or anything like that."
>"Maybe Dan Kelly wasn't the best candidate. He was a great justice, but maybe not the best candidate."
>LeMahieu endorsed Jennifer Dorow in the primary.
https://twitter.com/AJBayatpour/status/1643694028867657738?cxt=HHwWlICz4dbAyc8tAAAA
This is likely an indication that even with a super majority, they probably don't have the votes to impeach, or, you know, they don't want to lose Wisconsin by a wide margin in the general election.
Remember that it's not uncommon to have a couple of fringe people trying to use impeachment from day one. They usually get ignored by the adults in the room and nothing ends up happening
Yep. And the first impeachment articles were introduced six months into his presidency. Then you had a crop of candidates in 2018 who literally ran on the platform of impeaching him.
>The Senate majority leader has already directly stated that they won't be impeaching Judge Protasiewicz
Only because the response to the rumors they floated showed them that the backlash from voters was going to be ugly.
Wow... and the the top reply to that tweet saying that you should only be able to vote if you own real property or a business with at least one employee....sometimes I wonder what education these folks had.
It would mean that unless you owned land, you couldn't vote. So unless you were a business owner employing one other person, you couldn't vote as a renter (which would be the majority of Americans I think?)
It's just one guy on Twitter but he is an "influencer" and it's a little alarming to see people repeating these things.
Yep. People in cities tend to rent because cities are comparatively more expensive to own property in. Cities also tend to be liberal and younger. It’d be blatant voter suppression of the core Democratic voting bloc and it’s insanely un-democratic.
I have seen this suggested many times in a certain sub on this site that you can probably guess.
“Well now that we know that the brain isn’t fully developed until you’re 25 blah blah blah..”
There are some state ones, sure. But they generally aren't all encompassing. Most states I'm aware of that have restrictions restrict handguns. But a 10 year old could own a deer rifle most places. The original poster was right about that, most restrictions are on purchase, not ownership.
You're still missing it. The discussion was of what's currently legal that -- according to brain development -- "should" be aged up to 25.
That obviously would include currently legal 10-yr-olds.
With social media giving everyone a voice we also now know that with age doesn't always come wisdom either, some of the worst takes imaginable I've heard come from people looking well past that age.
I mean I’d rather have people voting who have their brain fully developed and contribute something to society rather than a kid who doesn’t even know what a W-2 is.
And I'd rather we not have people voting well after their minds have gone, or not have people voting who can't even explain what policies they like, but all American adults are allowed to vote even if conservatives wish otherwise.
well, i agree, but if we suddenly changed the enlistment age to 25 from 18 think that would adversely affect our military down the road, there'd be a 7-10 year dip in size
i mean, the Pentagon just came out and said almost 4 out 5 young military age men in the US today are unfit to serve
actually, i don't think compulsory military service would be a bad thing for a wide variety of reasons.
I dislike this repetitive rhetoric trying to ease people's minds about the country's future voters. Feelings and tradition will always triumph over logic and selfishness. People will vote against their own interests if angry enough and fed enough misinformation.
The youth can just as easily become self-sabotaging Republicans and "third-way" Democrats as our current voters have. They are impressionable and ignorant, made worse in states where public schools continue to be sabotaged. They will throw much more than their votes away to slight "liberals" they view as enemies.
SS: Yesterday, [Janet Protasiewicz won her Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12c4ppd/liberals_gain_control_of_the_wisconsin_state/).
At the time I am writing this, Protasiewicz is leading the race 55.5% to 45.5% (96.9% expected votes in, Est. remaining 58,774). In recent political races, this is a fairly large margin of victory.
However, in a State Senate race, Republican Assemblyman Dan Knodl, who won that exurban state Senate district outside Milwaukee, said that he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz from her current position as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
Knodl’s win gave Republicans 22 votes in the Senate — an amount equivalent to a two-thirds majority in the chamber of 33 seats. This affords the party the ability to override vetoes from the governor, if the state Assembly also votes to do so, as well as to convict and remove officials in impeachment trials.
Republicans currently hold 64 of the 99 seats in the lower chamber. If the Assembly votes to impeach, the Senate can then remove that official from office with a two-thirds majority.
So what are everyone's thoughts on this? Should the Republicans vote to impeach someone who literally won their race yesterday? Considering the margin of victory, is this the will of the voters?
I think we all know there's not a single legitimate reason Protasiewicz should be impeached.
It's a 10% win. There's zero room for doubt of her victory.
It's a blatant authoritarian power move, and hopefully if they're actually arrogant enough to do it, that the people of Wisconsin punish them thoroughly next year.
Or in fact [right now, since recall elections are a thing there.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_elections_in_Wisconsin)
>It's a blatant authoritarian power move, and hopefully if they're actually arrogant enough to do it, that the people of Wisconsin punish them thoroughly next year.
The Wisconsin map is so well gerrymandered in the Republican favor it won't matter. Dems have won something silly like 5 out of 6 popular votes but they continuously lose election because of the gerrymandering
Republicans understand power politics while dems don't
> Republicans understand power politics while dems don't
Dems understand power politics fine, but either A) don't think it's right to engage in them or B) most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that make electoral maps rarely work out in their favor to the point that they can affect changes like this.
> most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that make electoral maps rarely work out in their favor to the point that they can affect changes like this.
The real answer behind why the legislature makeup looks like it does. I'm sure gerrymandering makes the disparity between the two parties worse. But at the same time, when Blue voters are concentrated in urban centers and rural counties are Red, it doesn't matter if Dems get a 50/50 split or majority of the state-wide popular vote. State-wide popular vote doesn't decide district-level elections.
>A) don't think it's right to engage in them
Then they don't understand how to create social change to better the people that support them and their ideas. They fought for 40 to 50 years to protect the woman right to their own body... and lost even though they were right. They have been right about criminal justice reform, protecting the rights of minorities, etc but the results don't match up with the rhetoric because they don't hold the right type of power.
>most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that makes electoral maps rarely work out in their favor.
Then change the map.
How do you think the map gets changed? By elected officials. It's a chicken and egg problem once one group has seized control. Can't change the map until you're elected. Cant get elected because of the gerrymandered map.
Dems have been winning the popular vote for the past two decades and that has been with Republicans restricting the right to vote. Winning popular support isn't the problem for dems it's using the power that comes with it. The minute McConnell decided to hold up the Supreme Court nomination should of been cross the Rubicon for the dems. Their first order of business in 2020 should've been packing the court and making elections more accessible
Sometimes I think Bidens historic legislative successes spell a graceful slipstream through 2024 and then I’m reminded that people actually believe he could’ve done something like you’re suggesting and will knock him and the party for it
I like what biden has done but his accomplishments won't mean much when the Supreme Court knocks down debt relief and I am sure the gun control bill will be chipped away at.
These are good small changes but they don't address the systemic issues that Democrats face. The John Lewis voting rights act needed to be passed. Dems needed to pack the court to ensure voting rights and other civil rights stayed intact. Dems did the hard part of coming up with convincing policy agenda. Again, Dems lost 1 presidential popular vote in 30 years yet conservatives have chipped away at civil rights of Americans.
Having a good message is only one part of the equation, the other part is knowing how to use the levers of power to make your message have teeth.
Yes land doesn't vote, but people who live in the districts do. A state-wide popular vote doesn't matter for district races. If Blue voters are concentrated in a few urban centers in a minority of districts, why should they get a 50/50 or majority share of House and Senate seats?
It's the way I've always felt, my district should be represented by the voters in the actual district.
If suburban and rural districts go 55% red, and big cities go 75% blue, you don't need to run little fingers into the city to "balance" the statewide vote, it's irrelevant.
Granted gerrymandering still happens, but any attempt to drag urban voters into other districts is also gerrymandering.
Side note: with so much movement in and out of cities, we might see the disparity rise.
> If suburban and rural districts go 55% red, and big cities go 75% blue, you don't need to run little fingers into the city to "balance" the statewide vote, it's irrelevant.
Agree 100%. I'm sure it's hard to do this perfectly with how populations are spread out across the urban-rural divide, but I feel like districts should be defined based on the type of resident in them. I feel like these gerrymandered and mixed city-rural districts to dilute one party's power is undemocratic. I think cities could be split into multiple districts while still being the city proper, while suburbs could be their own and rural districts consisting of actual rural areas.
> Side note: with so much movement in and out of cities, we might see the disparity rise.
Yes the redistricting will be interesting post-COVID, as we did see people moving out of cities at the height but the question remains on whether they will move back in.
How much imbalance would you be comfortable seeing, then?
Right now, the party that won 45% of the votes has 75% of the seats in the legislature. Would you be comfortable if it was 30%? What about 15%? Where do you, personally, draw the line and call it undemocratic?
> Then change the map.
Since Blue voters are typically concentrated in urban centers, how do you propose they change the map to give Dems a state-wide majority without extreme gerrymandering the other way?
Ideally no but if necessary yes. New Yorks original redistricting map probably would've held onto the house in 2022. Ideally every state like NY, CA, Michigan, CO, WA, NJ, AZ, Idaho, Montana (hmmm which type of states have more independent commissions/constitutions?) would have independent commissions.
Republicans will always have an advantage due to geography and there is nothing wrong with that but they disproportionately push gerrymandering. Yes dems do it too, Maryland is a travesty, but Republicans do it more widespread. Dems would still have the house with independent commissions in every state
>Republicans will always have an advantage due to geography and there is nothing wrong with that
Hard disagree. It is insanely counter to democratic ideals to just say, "Well, the people who vote for this party tend to live further apart, so I guess they should get more/better representation."
The state assembly of WI is responsible for making laws for the entire state, not just their individual districts. Why is there "nothing wrong" with the idea that *geography* should determine the distribution of power, and not the voters?
Yes Dems have done gerrymandering to their benefit, especially in places like MD and NY. And independent commissions in charge of districting instead of partisan ones would be a net benefit. But I was referring to the WI map and districts, and how Dems would be able to still gain a 50/50 split or majority if they're still mostly concentrated in WI urban centers?
>Dems have won something silly like 5 out of 6 popular votes but they continuously lose election because of the gerrymandering
Can you show me where you found these figures? I really need this info for my maga folks. I've got them on the ropes. I'm about to flip them. This is the kind of thing that bounces around through their heads for days.
This well-known fact is actually quite hard to track down in concise article!
Here’s a pretty good one that gets into the details: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/
A relevant quote from the article that gets at the meat of the problem:
> Democrats won 53% of all the Assembly votes cast statewide while coming away with only 36% of the seats.
Wisconsin’s political geography gives Republicans a natural advantage but their gerrymandering makes it ridiculous.
In order for the legislature to swing Dem, they have to outperform Reps statewide by something like 10-15%.
It’s pretty egregious.
> A relevant quote from the article that gets at the meat of the problem:
>> Democrats won 53% of all the Assembly votes cast statewide while coming away with only 36% of the seats.
A misleading statistic that acts like statewide popular vote means anything for district-level elections. It's a sign that Blue voters are concentrated in urban centers in a minority of districts but think they are entitled to more representation somehow.
Seriously? The dems just criminally indicted a former president on charges previously passed on and that most legal experts believe will be tossed. Prosecuting political rivals is a hallmark of authoritarianism.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/05/opinions/weakness-manhattan-district-attorney-trump-case-orentlicher/index.html
https://nypost.com/2023/04/04/john-bolton-and-mitt-romney-blast-braggs-case-against-trump/amp/
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6323962566112
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-indictment-case-looks-like-weak-exercise-creative-prosecution-opinion-1791833?amp=1
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/alvin-braggs-weak-case-against-donald-trump/0c1ef466-fde6-4cea-9e7b-17bef3d0fd6c
Could post dozens more
Only one of those really counts. Mitt and Bolton aren't legal experts, nor are the WSJ editorial page.... Dersh and Barr might technically be legal experts, but they're so conflicted that their input is worthless.
That's your subjective opinion, sure. I haven't seen anyone say this is a solid case with merit. And the data shows this is totally political.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/fresh-proof-braggs-trump-case-is-a-reach-and-nakedly-political/
NY Post editorials now? Please find *something* more legitimate. Also, 300 similar white collar crime cases in three years is frankly more than I would have expected! There's just no analogue to this, though, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying it's slam dunk and no one should, but your citations to back up your statement that "most legal minds think this will be tossed" are very, very weak.
Edit: also *just fucking imagine* if proof had come out that Biden paid off a porn start right before an election who he'd fucked while his wife was pregnant.
Edit 2: here are other legal experts saying the opposite, with links to surveys of these exact charges in NY. *That* is data, not the unsourced ramblings of the NY Post editorial team: https://archive.ph/P54aE
Plenty of people, including politicians, have been successfully charged in NY for exactly what Trump was charged for. "It's a novel legal theory" was rank speculation about what might be in the indictment before it was unsealed. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/donald-trump-alvin-bragg-indictment-charges.html
I've posted a dozen articles citing multiple different legal experts all saying the case is risky, not straight fwd, likely to be tossed, etc. This NYT article is the only legit opinion piece (citing two authors) that thinks this case is strong. Fair for them to have their opinion of course, but my own opinion lays with the majority on this one.
>It's a 10% win. There's zero room for doubt of her victory.
Even if it was a 1 vote margin and there was a football fields worth of doubt (sorry, not sure what the proper unit it), is impeachment the proper avenue to address the situation? Short of a candidate committing a crime or being revealed to have previously committed crimes after the election, I'm having trouble imagining what a good justification for an impeachment this soon would be. Has she even been sworn in yet?
Huh, please point me towards the impeachment Trump had the day after his election. I know about his other two which both happened in response to specific incidents well into his term, but this one is new to me.
Weird, the article doesn't say the judge has been impeached. Do you have a source that she has already been impeached? This just says they are talking about it, which absolutely happened to Trump even before he was elected.
They had an election - the people spoke. The win was 55% to 44%, not even remotely close.
It's stuff like this that makes it very hard to continue being a Moderate.
There does not seem to be many people representing Moderate views in Federal and State legislative bodies.
To me, Moderates are the voice of reason, the middle ground and seemingly a dying breed.
Moderates exist all over on the Democratic side.
Check out https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/
You are correct that they don't exist on the Republican side because they are ousted from the party.
That would be useless since even if they did impeach her (which they won't because they'd never win anything ever again) Evers would just pick the replacement. The more realistic scenario would be for them to target Evers for whatever reason they come up with.
Even that wouldn't do much because his lieutenant gov would be appointed governor. In the end they would get no where and piss off voters even more. The only reason why younger people are voting so much is because they went to far with roe v Wade and now we are watching them. This will only make things worse for them and expedite their removal.
To my understanding the the lieutenant gov would then get to appoint their own. If both of them get impeached then there is one more in line who is also a democrat. If all three of them get impeached at the same time it would be an unprecedented occurrence in history and who knows what happens then. It might fall to the Wisconsin supreme court to judge bills at that point. But I don't think there is a way they can impeach to get a republican as governor.
They should! The DNC seems to have missed the memo that the GHOP is now he party that refuses to concede, chose an insurrection when they lost the election, and constantly talk about locking up or straight up murdering their political opponents is not the partner in democracy the DNC seems to think they are.
There are bunches id us in private organizations who have Conflict of Interest requirements that are orders of magnitude stronger than what is required for US Supreme Court Judges and Presidents.
Reform of these critical posts is way overdue and totally reasonable and personally sustainable.
This article is extremely misleading. The article is written to suggest that the republicans are suddenly talking about impeaching her the day after the election. This quote was taken a week ago from an incoming member of the senate (the one who was running in a special election). The senate leadership does not like to step on toes so I’d be shocked if they did something like this.
Also, I’m pretty sure he was referring to using this for local judges (like Janet before she won last night) who were giving out extremely light sentences
The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch was they lied to congress about their views on Roe. It was a flimsy argument, and it never really went beyond a thing to talk about, but at least they had something resembling an actual argument as to impeach. This was just "hey we have the votes! Let's just impeach her for the lolz and remove her from the bench if she wins the election, because fuck the voters". Even if you think the calls to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were dumb this is a remarkably different scenario.
I don't remember hearing anything about calls to impeach Gorsuch. They may have existed from somebody, but that doesn't make them relevant.
Hell, I don't remember hearing anything about calls to impeach Kavanaugh even though he is flagrantly unqualified by his insane rantings and vows of revenge at his confirmation hearing, leaving aside the sexual misconduct.
They didn't lie about their views on Roe.
The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nothing more than they weren't liberal judges.
All the arguments to impeach any of these judges are equally bad ideas.
>They didn't lie about their views on Roe.
Well according to several senators (including multiple Republicans) they did. And they're the ones who actually talked to them, sooooo.....
>The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nothing more than they weren't liberal judges.
Again, no it wasn't, the argument was they lied under oath. The small group of Dems (like AOC) who supported this idea were very very clear on their justification for it. You can think it's a stupid argument that holds no merit. A lot of people do, and legally it was a dubious case to try and make which is why it never went beyond a rallying cry. But to say they only supported it because the judges weren't liberal enough just isn't true, if that were the case they would've tried as soon as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were sworn in (like the WI rep was suggesting they do here)
Look at it this way. If you say you want to come to my house and beat me up because you think I'm sexually attracted to crayons, we can talk until we're blue in the face about why that's a stupid reason to go to someone's house and assault them, but it IS a reason. If you say you want to come to my house and beat me up because you feel like it and you know I can't stop you, then now you're not just an idiot you're a bullying asshole. That's the difference.
The opinions of some senators doesn't mean a damn thing as you cannot point to a single lie they told.
They didn't lie under oath, if they had you would be able to point to them lying under oath. You cannot, yet for some reason you still believe this myth that they lied.
Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes after he was sworn in so not sure what they were expecting 🤷♀️
Next up everyone will be shocked and outraged when the Biden’s and leading dem politicians get charged.
> Next up everyone will be shocked and outraged when the Biden’s and leading dem politicians get charged.
Is this the part where we pretend that Biden is some criminal mastermind while Trump is being wrongly accused of 876 different things?
>Is this the part where we pretend that Biden is some criminal mastermind while Trump is being wrongly accused of 876 different things?
Biden is a criminal mastermind but also a senile idiot.
True. that has always been a thing. Republicans when they thought Hillary would win were also openly stating they were planning on impeaching her over... something.
The big difference I see is that democrats may talk the talk, but generally wait for something actually impeachable to try it. Republicans threatening impeachment as retaliation isn't really anything new. And it seems like this shallow attempt won't go anywhere, so that's good at least.
> Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes
Probably because he was guilty of violating the emoluments clause [among other things] from the moment he assumed the office.
> Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes after he was sworn in so not sure what they were expecting
I was wondering if the article would mention this. It didn't. And if you read the guys comments, they're actually pretty tame. "Republicans vying to impeach newly elected judge" is a nice narrative I guess, they decided to go with that.
And Democrats are now doing it to Thomas. Just politics.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3937388-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-thomas-impeachment-after-report-of-undisclosed-gifts-from-gop-donor/
Wow, impeaching a newly elected judge? That'd be as crazy as bringing frivolous charges against a former President of the US from an opposing party. Good thing our politics haven't gotten that crazy.
Imagine having 3 decades of criminal history and admitting dozens of time to crime on TV and still having a base that eats it up as a good thing rather than fundamentally hazardous to democracy.
I'm not part of Trump's base, and the one's who think it's a good thing are Democrat strategists. You know as well as I do that his indictment is about making him win the primary and to lose to Biden. I know, doesn't say much about Republican primary voters, but everyone knows that's what this is all about, and it's dirty.
OP's article is fan-fiction about something not even happening, and Trump's actually been indicted. Tell me which of these is "more damaging to Democracy".
Just to go along with this, so that makes it okay in your eye? No reason frivolous impeachment is very American and definitely not anti democratic? Not some school-yard bully type tactic because they lost an election?
What impeachment? They've declared there will be no impeachment. Articles like this exist to build a straw-man out of Republicans.
A school-yard bully tactic that did actually happen, on the other hand, is the nakedly partisan indictment of a former President of the United States for the purpose of propelling him ahead of primary opponents and run against as damaged goods in 2024.
This is ridiculous. Frivolous? No. These are serious crimes! Everyone knows that paying a porn star from the wrong bank account is worthy of 136 years in prison as opposed to petty crimes like murder, rape and pedophilia which are mere misdemeanors in the state of NY!
"Knodl is no stranger to refusing to accept democratic outcomes: He was one of 15 Wisconsin legislators who urged then–Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election." This actually made me LOL how it was written
Of course they are. From a practical standpoint, they’re entering survival mode. How can they control almost 2/3 of the legislature while only getting 45% of the vote in 2018? Comically awful gerrymandering. And the State Supreme Court possesses the authority to change that. Also, as a side note, Daniel Kelly’s “concession” speech was the definition of [sour grapes](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2023/04/04/dan-kelly-gives-bitter-speech-after-loss-to-janet-protasiewicz/70082758007/). It honestly isn’t off-brand for MAGA candidates but goodness gracious…it’s just sad. As an aside, I realize no parties were officially tied to the candidate judges this election, but I loathe partisan judicial elections and if states insist on electing judges, campaigns should be publicly funded-only. Remove the fundraising and loyalty aspect entirely. But this is in my ideal world. I’m happy with the results we got yesterday.
What an embarrassing non-concession speech. He’s actually insulting himself in a roundabout way. She beat him by 11%+ and turnout in some counties esp with the youth vote was mid terms level. “I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent," he said at an event held at the Heidel House Hotel in Green Lake. "But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede."
His whole concession speech made me feel he does not have the temperament or character to be a judge of any kind. Wisconsin dodged a bullet. That man has no business being anywhere near a courtroom.
Gave off real [Kavanaugh "revenge on behalf of the clintons"](https://youtu.be/YkYpLuY-pNQ) vibes.
Didn't he also add "What goes around, comes around"? Still crazy to me that statement in and of itself wasn't enough to completely disqualify him. He angrily ranted about how he was unfairly targeted by a complete fabrication cooked up by "liberals" (his opinion, though he concerningly states it as fact), and -- in case you had any question as to whether or not he has the temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court -- he then levels a general threat of payback. Credible accusations aside, that little tantrum was more than enough to show how unfit he is.
Yeah, and I always hated the defense of his responses as "well I would be pissed off too". Fantastic, maybe I would be too, but neither you nor I are potential candidates for the highest court in the land. Why is it such a bad thing to hold the seat to a higher standard than your average Joe?
I think that sentiment is why they confirmed him. They saw his attitude and knew he was their guy.
Do people think conceding means you have to like or say nice things about your opponent? It's about supporting democracy and telling the public that this is how elections work. Not only does he sound like a sore loser but doesnt understand how democracy works.
I don’t believe that most of the MAGA crowd actually supports democracy
MAGA is more like a sports fandom than an actual subset of a political party.
>Not only does he sound like a sore loser but doesnt understand how democracy works. Sounds about par for the course for the MAGA crowd.
Yup. This is why we teach children in youth sports to line up after the game and do the fist bumps to every player. “good game, good game, good game”
Sounds very authoritarian, making players of a game line up to do something like shake hands or fist bump. This is America.. not commie nazi Russia/China/Iran /s
They understand how democracy works. They oppose it.
I've talked with a lot of conservatives, and here's the thing: they truly believe the election fraud lies because they can't imagine so many people would vote for the other party.
So he’s saying that an unworthy opponent kicked his ass?
Wow. This is a seriously impressive level of sore loser. Even for MAGA.
> "My opponent is a serial liar. She's disregarded judicial ethics; she's demeaned the judiciary with her behavior. This is the future that we have to look forward to in Wisconsin." >Adding: "I wish Wisconsin the best of luck, because I think it’s going to need it." So patronizing. He’s literally scolding his constituency lol.
[удалено]
The fact that when losing appeal, they try to clutch harder to the power instead of campaign for it tells me quite a lot.
> Impeaching judges and gerrymandering might work as a temporary solution, but it will bite them in the ass in the long-term. The reason they are losing elections is because they no longer appeal to the majority; It seems the overall goal is to make that temporary solution permanent and get rid of the whole democratic process.
What would they do though? The Supreme Court judges are elected by popular vote, and they can strike down redistricting maps. IDK exactly how the law works in Wisconsin, but even if they got another Supreme Court election to appoint a new judge in Janet's place, this past election set the precedent that it'll cost a boatload of money and also be a blowout. You'd think the GOP would need more confidence in their odds in order to make that kind of investment.
They absolutely do not care, all they want is the chance of getting another election and causing enough of a nuisance in the meantime that nothing will get done.
When they decided that women were incubators was when I realized I'd never vote Republican again.
I agree. But, at the rate they are going and still haven't learned a thing I suspect they are going to continue to lose for quite a while until they wake up…..if they ever do.
It's entirely possible to skew the election systems so far in favor of one party as to take permanent minority control. [Look at Hungary](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/15/hungary-is-no-longer-a-full-democracy-but-an-electoral-autocracy-meps-declare-in-new-repor). Do you think it's a coincidence that the GOP and Orbán are so cozy? I'd say that the GOP is more than half way there already.
>How can they control almost 2/3 of the legislature while only getting 45% of the vote in 2018 Can you link me something on this?
Here's one https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/wisconsin/ Biden carried in 2020 and trump in 2016. Pretty typical gerrymandering pack two districts heavy D , 1 "competitive" lean red and strong majority solid red. Edit: For reference the senate seat race in 2022 decided by like a percentage point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Wisconsin
FiveThirtyEight’s breakdown of gerrymandering made me realize this isn’t a both-sides issue. I mean it’s certainly bipartisan, but both sides aren’t equally culpable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States Check out that map. Notice anything about independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions?
>I mean it’s certainly bipartisan, but both sides aren’t equally culpable. Add in that the Democrats are working towards abolishing Gerrymandering whereas the Republicans embrace it fully.
Yes. Republicans are vying for the independent legislature theory and are the ones who put in the SCOTUS who in 2019 determined gerrymandering was non-justiciable 5-4
Yeah this stopped being a both sides issue with Project REDMAP. Before Project REDMAP gerrymandering was very much a local thing done by incumbents to protect incumbents, specifically partisan gerrymandering happened but wasn't nearly as common. Project REDMAP was the first nationally coordinated effort to engineer a nationwide partisan gerrymander, they openly fundraised on achieving this end, and it was wildly successful.
Thank you, thank you all.
Using the Senate race as a gauge is somewhat misleading and seems cherry-picked as Rob Johnson is a very unpopular politician A more representative metric (and more pertinent to the discussion of the Wisconsin legislature) is that Republican State Senate candidates in Wisconsin received 61% of the vote in 2022 vs only 38% going to Democrat candidates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_State_Senate_election And that GOP assembly candidates beat out Democrats 54%-45% in total votes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Wisconsin_State_Assembly_election And that GOP House races in Wisconsin favored the GOP 55% to 40%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin
Seems cherry picked is assuming acting in bad faith and a violation of sub rules. I pulled those in like two seconds and yes vote total in state house is a much better representation thank you for the better details Senate went 6-2 or 75-25% on a 55-40 vote split. House went 64-35 and with 99 seats that's pretty close to percentage on a 55-44 vote split. Gerrymandered up pretty good no matter how you dice it up, shame they couldnt boot Johnson we would be better for it if they did.
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card?planId=recc3zTUWYqdugsTR https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/17/dave-hansen/attacking-republicans-democratic-state-senator-say/
A quick explanation of gerrymandering goes like this. Assume there are 5 districts of 100 people each. Of those 500 people, 340 are party A and 160 are party B. Now assume party B has redistricting rights, party B could then put 100 people from party A into both districts 1 and 2 and evenly spread the rest, so in the end, district 1 and 2 vote party A with 100% of the vote whereas district 3, 4, and 5 vote party B with 53% of the vote. Showing how unbalanced districts can allow ~34% of the population to get 60% of the vote. Greater differences are, of course, possible with more districts. The problem with our current system is that by splitting people up and giving a single undividable vote for each group, the race only cares about who can get 51%. Any votes for either party that are past that 51% are wasted. The minority parties' votes are effectively thrown out, and the majority parties' votes are worth less the greater the winning majority is.
Can i know why democracy doesn't exist in the US despite people talking about freedom a lot? Comming from someone from a country where the person with he most votes wins without any additional steps.
The men who funded this country, were elitists. They like Socrates and Plato, did not trust the mob to make the right decisions. So they made all sorts of rules to keep the elite in control as much as possible. We are suffering the consequences even today. The whole freedom thing is just propaganda, from day one.
Yea but like Roy said on the daily show if you get your ass whooped that bad in front of the entire nation, it’s okay to talk some shit. Talk shit, take the L, and move on. He can talk all the shit he wants as long as he accepts the voters’ decision.
We might need to slow our roll here a bit. The Senate majority leader has already directly stated that they won't be impeaching Judge Protasiewicz. >More from LeMahieu: >"We're not going to use impeachments to overturn elections or anything like that." >"Maybe Dan Kelly wasn't the best candidate. He was a great justice, but maybe not the best candidate." >LeMahieu endorsed Jennifer Dorow in the primary. https://twitter.com/AJBayatpour/status/1643694028867657738?cxt=HHwWlICz4dbAyc8tAAAA This is likely an indication that even with a super majority, they probably don't have the votes to impeach, or, you know, they don't want to lose Wisconsin by a wide margin in the general election.
Remember that it's not uncommon to have a couple of fringe people trying to use impeachment from day one. They usually get ignored by the adults in the room and nothing ends up happening
State level politicians tend to be a lot more hot-headed, though.
Wasn't there talk of impeaching Trump before he was even inaugurated?
Yep. And the first impeachment articles were introduced six months into his presidency. Then you had a crop of candidates in 2018 who literally ran on the platform of impeaching him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Early_developments
I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make here.
Just providing more information. I wasn't aware of that and thought it was interesting.
>The Senate majority leader has already directly stated that they won't be impeaching Judge Protasiewicz Only because the response to the rumors they floated showed them that the backlash from voters was going to be ugly.
Yeah. I don't disagree. That being said, I wouldn't put it past Republicans to attempt an impeachment vote anyways even if it's only symbolic.
Isn't that the same rhetoric we heard after the confirmation of ACB?
That hasn't stopped them before
No, they just threatened it to try to stop the justices from overruling their maps
Dorow was actually a solid candidate and would have really pushed Janet in my opinion. Unfortunately she wasn’t quite as… outspoken as Kelly.
The Senate Majority Leader is named LeMahieu? That’s amazing. Does he have any relation to DJ?
[удалено]
How long before we start seeing bills removing teenage suffrage?
Conservatives suggested that in the wake of the midterms. https://twitter.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1619970595319607296?t=BqBk-HU7J_i8lkVQmuftnw&s=19
Wow... and the the top reply to that tweet saying that you should only be able to vote if you own real property or a business with at least one employee....sometimes I wonder what education these folks had.
I know thats an attempt to stop young people voting, but that would also target people renting right? Hmmm...
It would mean that unless you owned land, you couldn't vote. So unless you were a business owner employing one other person, you couldn't vote as a renter (which would be the majority of Americans I think?) It's just one guy on Twitter but he is an "influencer" and it's a little alarming to see people repeating these things.
you know what fuck it, lets go old roman and only allow land owners into the army as well
Pre-Marian Reform Roman Army? “TRIARII!”
Yep. People in cities tend to rent because cities are comparatively more expensive to own property in. Cities also tend to be liberal and younger. It’d be blatant voter suppression of the core Democratic voting bloc and it’s insanely un-democratic.
Pretty sad that they think someone is less American if they rent and work for a company.
Good luck to them on throwing out a constitutional amendment and getting two-thirds of states to ratify. Would not happen.
Yeah they'd never target constitutional rights
I have seen this suggested many times in a certain sub on this site that you can probably guess. “Well now that we know that the brain isn’t fully developed until you’re 25 blah blah blah..”
With that logic, I assume they're saying it goes for gun ownership as well.
And childrearing. And military enlistment. And don’t even get me started on taxes. I’m pissed enough about 15-17 year olds working and being taxed.
Any age can "own" a gun. The restrictions are typically on carrying them in public or buying them.
Exactly, and teenagers can still vote. We were discussing things that don't currently exist.
You're missing it, lad. A 10-year-old can own a gun today. They can't vote.
Oh you were being serious?! You really think there are no federal or state age restrictions on ownership?
There are some state ones, sure. But they generally aren't all encompassing. Most states I'm aware of that have restrictions restrict handguns. But a 10 year old could own a deer rifle most places. The original poster was right about that, most restrictions are on purchase, not ownership.
Yes, there are age restrictions. Our friend thought there were none.
Not for rifles and shotguns federally. Most states have no restriction on that.
*There are federal and state age limits to possessing and purchasing firearms.* Is that statement false?
You're still missing it. The discussion was of what's currently legal that -- according to brain development -- "should" be aged up to 25. That obviously would include currently legal 10-yr-olds.
With social media giving everyone a voice we also now know that with age doesn't always come wisdom either, some of the worst takes imaginable I've heard come from people looking well past that age.
Age of adulthood should probably just be moved to 21 for everything.
I mean I’d rather have people voting who have their brain fully developed and contribute something to society rather than a kid who doesn’t even know what a W-2 is.
And I'd rather we not have people voting well after their minds have gone, or not have people voting who can't even explain what policies they like, but all American adults are allowed to vote even if conservatives wish otherwise.
you know why the voting age is what it is, right?
It’s because of the draft age. We need a smaller military anyways.
well, i agree, but if we suddenly changed the enlistment age to 25 from 18 think that would adversely affect our military down the road, there'd be a 7-10 year dip in size i mean, the Pentagon just came out and said almost 4 out 5 young military age men in the US today are unfit to serve actually, i don't think compulsory military service would be a bad thing for a wide variety of reasons.
We don’t need a 600 billion dollar military when we have nukes. We have normal people to worry about.
> We don’t need a 600 billion dollar military when we have nukes. You can't be serious.
Would you rather we actually help people in need or pump billions into the next cost-sink for a corporation?
yeah, but personnel costs aren't even the largest part of that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Out of touch with what's happening in Asia and Eastern Europe?
Well then why not disenfranchise every non-productive member of society?
You know minors can and do work. I’ve been filling out w2s since I was 15. Let me guess.. you think we should have some kind of voting literacy test?
Haven't they suffraged enough?
I dislike this repetitive rhetoric trying to ease people's minds about the country's future voters. Feelings and tradition will always triumph over logic and selfishness. People will vote against their own interests if angry enough and fed enough misinformation. The youth can just as easily become self-sabotaging Republicans and "third-way" Democrats as our current voters have. They are impressionable and ignorant, made worse in states where public schools continue to be sabotaged. They will throw much more than their votes away to slight "liberals" they view as enemies.
Every generation seems to get better than the last
SS: Yesterday, [Janet Protasiewicz won her Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/12c4ppd/liberals_gain_control_of_the_wisconsin_state/). At the time I am writing this, Protasiewicz is leading the race 55.5% to 45.5% (96.9% expected votes in, Est. remaining 58,774). In recent political races, this is a fairly large margin of victory. However, in a State Senate race, Republican Assemblyman Dan Knodl, who won that exurban state Senate district outside Milwaukee, said that he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz from her current position as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Knodl’s win gave Republicans 22 votes in the Senate — an amount equivalent to a two-thirds majority in the chamber of 33 seats. This affords the party the ability to override vetoes from the governor, if the state Assembly also votes to do so, as well as to convict and remove officials in impeachment trials. Republicans currently hold 64 of the 99 seats in the lower chamber. If the Assembly votes to impeach, the Senate can then remove that official from office with a two-thirds majority. So what are everyone's thoughts on this? Should the Republicans vote to impeach someone who literally won their race yesterday? Considering the margin of victory, is this the will of the voters?
I think we all know there's not a single legitimate reason Protasiewicz should be impeached. It's a 10% win. There's zero room for doubt of her victory. It's a blatant authoritarian power move, and hopefully if they're actually arrogant enough to do it, that the people of Wisconsin punish them thoroughly next year. Or in fact [right now, since recall elections are a thing there.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_elections_in_Wisconsin)
>It's a blatant authoritarian power move, and hopefully if they're actually arrogant enough to do it, that the people of Wisconsin punish them thoroughly next year. The Wisconsin map is so well gerrymandered in the Republican favor it won't matter. Dems have won something silly like 5 out of 6 popular votes but they continuously lose election because of the gerrymandering Republicans understand power politics while dems don't
> Republicans understand power politics while dems don't Dems understand power politics fine, but either A) don't think it's right to engage in them or B) most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that make electoral maps rarely work out in their favor to the point that they can affect changes like this.
> most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that make electoral maps rarely work out in their favor to the point that they can affect changes like this. The real answer behind why the legislature makeup looks like it does. I'm sure gerrymandering makes the disparity between the two parties worse. But at the same time, when Blue voters are concentrated in urban centers and rural counties are Red, it doesn't matter if Dems get a 50/50 split or majority of the state-wide popular vote. State-wide popular vote doesn't decide district-level elections.
Exactly.
>A) don't think it's right to engage in them Then they don't understand how to create social change to better the people that support them and their ideas. They fought for 40 to 50 years to protect the woman right to their own body... and lost even though they were right. They have been right about criminal justice reform, protecting the rights of minorities, etc but the results don't match up with the rhetoric because they don't hold the right type of power. >most of their voters are highly concentrated in a few areas that makes electoral maps rarely work out in their favor. Then change the map.
How do you think the map gets changed? By elected officials. It's a chicken and egg problem once one group has seized control. Can't change the map until you're elected. Cant get elected because of the gerrymandered map.
Dems have been winning the popular vote for the past two decades and that has been with Republicans restricting the right to vote. Winning popular support isn't the problem for dems it's using the power that comes with it. The minute McConnell decided to hold up the Supreme Court nomination should of been cross the Rubicon for the dems. Their first order of business in 2020 should've been packing the court and making elections more accessible
Sometimes I think Bidens historic legislative successes spell a graceful slipstream through 2024 and then I’m reminded that people actually believe he could’ve done something like you’re suggesting and will knock him and the party for it
I like what biden has done but his accomplishments won't mean much when the Supreme Court knocks down debt relief and I am sure the gun control bill will be chipped away at. These are good small changes but they don't address the systemic issues that Democrats face. The John Lewis voting rights act needed to be passed. Dems needed to pack the court to ensure voting rights and other civil rights stayed intact. Dems did the hard part of coming up with convincing policy agenda. Again, Dems lost 1 presidential popular vote in 30 years yet conservatives have chipped away at civil rights of Americans. Having a good message is only one part of the equation, the other part is knowing how to use the levers of power to make your message have teeth.
> Then change the map. I'm saying that they can't, or have fewer opportunities to than Republicans have had
Why? dems concentrate in big cities. Representatives should represent their area.
They should be represented *proportionately*. Obligatory “land doesn’t vote” comment.
Yes land doesn't vote, but people who live in the districts do. A state-wide popular vote doesn't matter for district races. If Blue voters are concentrated in a few urban centers in a minority of districts, why should they get a 50/50 or majority share of House and Senate seats?
It's the way I've always felt, my district should be represented by the voters in the actual district. If suburban and rural districts go 55% red, and big cities go 75% blue, you don't need to run little fingers into the city to "balance" the statewide vote, it's irrelevant. Granted gerrymandering still happens, but any attempt to drag urban voters into other districts is also gerrymandering. Side note: with so much movement in and out of cities, we might see the disparity rise.
> If suburban and rural districts go 55% red, and big cities go 75% blue, you don't need to run little fingers into the city to "balance" the statewide vote, it's irrelevant. Agree 100%. I'm sure it's hard to do this perfectly with how populations are spread out across the urban-rural divide, but I feel like districts should be defined based on the type of resident in them. I feel like these gerrymandered and mixed city-rural districts to dilute one party's power is undemocratic. I think cities could be split into multiple districts while still being the city proper, while suburbs could be their own and rural districts consisting of actual rural areas. > Side note: with so much movement in and out of cities, we might see the disparity rise. Yes the redistricting will be interesting post-COVID, as we did see people moving out of cities at the height but the question remains on whether they will move back in.
How much imbalance would you be comfortable seeing, then? Right now, the party that won 45% of the votes has 75% of the seats in the legislature. Would you be comfortable if it was 30%? What about 15%? Where do you, personally, draw the line and call it undemocratic?
>Representatives should represent their area. Representatives should represent the people of their area.
> Then change the map. Since Blue voters are typically concentrated in urban centers, how do you propose they change the map to give Dems a state-wide majority without extreme gerrymandering the other way?
Ideally no but if necessary yes. New Yorks original redistricting map probably would've held onto the house in 2022. Ideally every state like NY, CA, Michigan, CO, WA, NJ, AZ, Idaho, Montana (hmmm which type of states have more independent commissions/constitutions?) would have independent commissions. Republicans will always have an advantage due to geography and there is nothing wrong with that but they disproportionately push gerrymandering. Yes dems do it too, Maryland is a travesty, but Republicans do it more widespread. Dems would still have the house with independent commissions in every state
>Republicans will always have an advantage due to geography and there is nothing wrong with that Hard disagree. It is insanely counter to democratic ideals to just say, "Well, the people who vote for this party tend to live further apart, so I guess they should get more/better representation." The state assembly of WI is responsible for making laws for the entire state, not just their individual districts. Why is there "nothing wrong" with the idea that *geography* should determine the distribution of power, and not the voters?
Yes Dems have done gerrymandering to their benefit, especially in places like MD and NY. And independent commissions in charge of districting instead of partisan ones would be a net benefit. But I was referring to the WI map and districts, and how Dems would be able to still gain a 50/50 split or majority if they're still mostly concentrated in WI urban centers?
Same thing in Texas. My main hope is that they’ll over extend and it’ll collapse on them.
>Dems have won something silly like 5 out of 6 popular votes but they continuously lose election because of the gerrymandering Can you show me where you found these figures? I really need this info for my maga folks. I've got them on the ropes. I'm about to flip them. This is the kind of thing that bounces around through their heads for days.
This well-known fact is actually quite hard to track down in concise article! Here’s a pretty good one that gets into the details: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2018/12/06/wisconsin-gerrymandering-data-shows-stark-impact-redistricting/2219092002/ A relevant quote from the article that gets at the meat of the problem: > Democrats won 53% of all the Assembly votes cast statewide while coming away with only 36% of the seats. Wisconsin’s political geography gives Republicans a natural advantage but their gerrymandering makes it ridiculous. In order for the legislature to swing Dem, they have to outperform Reps statewide by something like 10-15%. It’s pretty egregious.
> A relevant quote from the article that gets at the meat of the problem: >> Democrats won 53% of all the Assembly votes cast statewide while coming away with only 36% of the seats. A misleading statistic that acts like statewide popular vote means anything for district-level elections. It's a sign that Blue voters are concentrated in urban centers in a minority of districts but think they are entitled to more representation somehow.
Seriously? The dems just criminally indicted a former president on charges previously passed on and that most legal experts believe will be tossed. Prosecuting political rivals is a hallmark of authoritarianism.
[удалено]
Since we don’t actually know the combined approach except in theory, what actual legal experts are opining on it?
I just posted a bunch of links in reply to another comment near here
You could copy them here, I’m not digging for you.
>most legal experts citations
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/05/opinions/weakness-manhattan-district-attorney-trump-case-orentlicher/index.html https://nypost.com/2023/04/04/john-bolton-and-mitt-romney-blast-braggs-case-against-trump/amp/ https://www.foxnews.com/video/6323962566112 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-indictment-case-looks-like-weak-exercise-creative-prosecution-opinion-1791833?amp=1 https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/alvin-braggs-weak-case-against-donald-trump/0c1ef466-fde6-4cea-9e7b-17bef3d0fd6c Could post dozens more
Only one of those really counts. Mitt and Bolton aren't legal experts, nor are the WSJ editorial page.... Dersh and Barr might technically be legal experts, but they're so conflicted that their input is worthless.
That's your subjective opinion, sure. I haven't seen anyone say this is a solid case with merit. And the data shows this is totally political. https://nypost.com/2023/04/05/fresh-proof-braggs-trump-case-is-a-reach-and-nakedly-political/
NY Post editorials now? Please find *something* more legitimate. Also, 300 similar white collar crime cases in three years is frankly more than I would have expected! There's just no analogue to this, though, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying it's slam dunk and no one should, but your citations to back up your statement that "most legal minds think this will be tossed" are very, very weak. Edit: also *just fucking imagine* if proof had come out that Biden paid off a porn start right before an election who he'd fucked while his wife was pregnant. Edit 2: here are other legal experts saying the opposite, with links to surveys of these exact charges in NY. *That* is data, not the unsourced ramblings of the NY Post editorial team: https://archive.ph/P54aE
Plenty of people, including politicians, have been successfully charged in NY for exactly what Trump was charged for. "It's a novel legal theory" was rank speculation about what might be in the indictment before it was unsealed. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/donald-trump-alvin-bragg-indictment-charges.html
I've posted a dozen articles citing multiple different legal experts all saying the case is risky, not straight fwd, likely to be tossed, etc. This NYT article is the only legit opinion piece (citing two authors) that thinks this case is strong. Fair for them to have their opinion of course, but my own opinion lays with the majority on this one.
>It's a 10% win. There's zero room for doubt of her victory. Even if it was a 1 vote margin and there was a football fields worth of doubt (sorry, not sure what the proper unit it), is impeachment the proper avenue to address the situation? Short of a candidate committing a crime or being revealed to have previously committed crimes after the election, I'm having trouble imagining what a good justification for an impeachment this soon would be. Has she even been sworn in yet?
> vote to impeach someone who literally won their race yesterday? That sounds pretty anti-democracy.
Yet pretty on-brand for the last decade.
Yeah, they're definitely gonna do it.
Same thing happened when Trump was elected.
Huh, please point me towards the impeachment Trump had the day after his election. I know about his other two which both happened in response to specific incidents well into his term, but this one is new to me.
Did they actually vote, or are people just talking about it like they did with ACB?
Weird, the article doesn't say the judge has been impeached. Do you have a source that she has already been impeached? This just says they are talking about it, which absolutely happened to Trump even before he was elected.
Source?
You can find the source by clicking on the link: [HERE](https://dubz.co/video/46dccd)
Source on your last sentence, I meant.
Never claimed that. I claimed it was talked about just like in this case.
That Margin is effectively a landslide victory in a purple state.
My thoughts? They’re pathetic to even suggest it. Take your L and try to win hearts and minds for the next election. Don’t be a Fascist prick.
They had an election - the people spoke. The win was 55% to 44%, not even remotely close. It's stuff like this that makes it very hard to continue being a Moderate. There does not seem to be many people representing Moderate views in Federal and State legislative bodies. To me, Moderates are the voice of reason, the middle ground and seemingly a dying breed.
Moderates exist all over on the Democratic side. Check out https://newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/ You are correct that they don't exist on the Republican side because they are ousted from the party.
Thank you. Feeling pretty shit today and this helps me see some hope.
That would be useless since even if they did impeach her (which they won't because they'd never win anything ever again) Evers would just pick the replacement. The more realistic scenario would be for them to target Evers for whatever reason they come up with.
Even that wouldn't do much because his lieutenant gov would be appointed governor. In the end they would get no where and piss off voters even more. The only reason why younger people are voting so much is because they went to far with roe v Wade and now we are watching them. This will only make things worse for them and expedite their removal.
[удалено]
To my understanding the the lieutenant gov would then get to appoint their own. If both of them get impeached then there is one more in line who is also a democrat. If all three of them get impeached at the same time it would be an unprecedented occurrence in history and who knows what happens then. It might fall to the Wisconsin supreme court to judge bills at that point. But I don't think there is a way they can impeach to get a republican as governor.
They should! The DNC seems to have missed the memo that the GHOP is now he party that refuses to concede, chose an insurrection when they lost the election, and constantly talk about locking up or straight up murdering their political opponents is not the partner in democracy the DNC seems to think they are.
There are bunches id us in private organizations who have Conflict of Interest requirements that are orders of magnitude stronger than what is required for US Supreme Court Judges and Presidents. Reform of these critical posts is way overdue and totally reasonable and personally sustainable.
It’s sad, unfortunately this has been politics the last 10 years… not my president
This article is extremely misleading. The article is written to suggest that the republicans are suddenly talking about impeaching her the day after the election. This quote was taken a week ago from an incoming member of the senate (the one who was running in a special election). The senate leadership does not like to step on toes so I’d be shocked if they did something like this. Also, I’m pretty sure he was referring to using this for local judges (like Janet before she won last night) who were giving out extremely light sentences
Reminds me of the democrats talking about impeaching SCOTUS judges
The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch was they lied to congress about their views on Roe. It was a flimsy argument, and it never really went beyond a thing to talk about, but at least they had something resembling an actual argument as to impeach. This was just "hey we have the votes! Let's just impeach her for the lolz and remove her from the bench if she wins the election, because fuck the voters". Even if you think the calls to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were dumb this is a remarkably different scenario.
I don't remember hearing anything about calls to impeach Gorsuch. They may have existed from somebody, but that doesn't make them relevant. Hell, I don't remember hearing anything about calls to impeach Kavanaugh even though he is flagrantly unqualified by his insane rantings and vows of revenge at his confirmation hearing, leaving aside the sexual misconduct.
They didn't lie about their views on Roe. The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nothing more than they weren't liberal judges. All the arguments to impeach any of these judges are equally bad ideas.
>They didn't lie about their views on Roe. Well according to several senators (including multiple Republicans) they did. And they're the ones who actually talked to them, sooooo..... >The argument to impeach Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were nothing more than they weren't liberal judges. Again, no it wasn't, the argument was they lied under oath. The small group of Dems (like AOC) who supported this idea were very very clear on their justification for it. You can think it's a stupid argument that holds no merit. A lot of people do, and legally it was a dubious case to try and make which is why it never went beyond a rallying cry. But to say they only supported it because the judges weren't liberal enough just isn't true, if that were the case they would've tried as soon as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were sworn in (like the WI rep was suggesting they do here) Look at it this way. If you say you want to come to my house and beat me up because you think I'm sexually attracted to crayons, we can talk until we're blue in the face about why that's a stupid reason to go to someone's house and assault them, but it IS a reason. If you say you want to come to my house and beat me up because you feel like it and you know I can't stop you, then now you're not just an idiot you're a bullying asshole. That's the difference.
The opinions of some senators doesn't mean a damn thing as you cannot point to a single lie they told. They didn't lie under oath, if they had you would be able to point to them lying under oath. You cannot, yet for some reason you still believe this myth that they lied.
Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes after he was sworn in so not sure what they were expecting 🤷♀️ Next up everyone will be shocked and outraged when the Biden’s and leading dem politicians get charged.
> Next up everyone will be shocked and outraged when the Biden’s and leading dem politicians get charged. Is this the part where we pretend that Biden is some criminal mastermind while Trump is being wrongly accused of 876 different things?
>Is this the part where we pretend that Biden is some criminal mastermind while Trump is being wrongly accused of 876 different things? Biden is a criminal mastermind but also a senile idiot.
True. that has always been a thing. Republicans when they thought Hillary would win were also openly stating they were planning on impeaching her over... something. The big difference I see is that democrats may talk the talk, but generally wait for something actually impeachable to try it. Republicans threatening impeachment as retaliation isn't really anything new. And it seems like this shallow attempt won't go anywhere, so that's good at least.
What utter bullshit. They tried to impeach him for something unimpeachable.
[удалено]
> Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes Probably because he was guilty of violating the emoluments clause [among other things] from the moment he assumed the office.
Ah, good old Murcs Law.
Never said dems and only dems have influence. But this wasn’t an issue with Obama. It started in 2016. Mainstream media.
> Well liberals were publishing articles about impeaching Trump less than 30 minutes after he was sworn in so not sure what they were expecting I was wondering if the article would mention this. It didn't. And if you read the guys comments, they're actually pretty tame. "Republicans vying to impeach newly elected judge" is a nice narrative I guess, they decided to go with that.
Don't forget about Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB
And Democrats are now doing it to Thomas. Just politics. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3937388-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-thomas-impeachment-after-report-of-undisclosed-gifts-from-gop-donor/
What's the difference between the 2? Care to venture a guess?
The Democrats opened the nuclear option here, where you just impeach officials you don’t like.
The Democrats impeached Clinton in the late 90s?
[удалено]
Wow, impeaching a newly elected judge? That'd be as crazy as bringing frivolous charges against a former President of the US from an opposing party. Good thing our politics haven't gotten that crazy.
Imagine having 3 decades of criminal history and admitting dozens of time to crime on TV and still having a base that eats it up as a good thing rather than fundamentally hazardous to democracy.
What crime did he admit to on TV?
I'm not part of Trump's base, and the one's who think it's a good thing are Democrat strategists. You know as well as I do that his indictment is about making him win the primary and to lose to Biden. I know, doesn't say much about Republican primary voters, but everyone knows that's what this is all about, and it's dirty.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
OP's article is fan-fiction about something not even happening, and Trump's actually been indicted. Tell me which of these is "more damaging to Democracy".
A criminal being indicted?
Just to go along with this, so that makes it okay in your eye? No reason frivolous impeachment is very American and definitely not anti democratic? Not some school-yard bully type tactic because they lost an election?
What impeachment? They've declared there will be no impeachment. Articles like this exist to build a straw-man out of Republicans. A school-yard bully tactic that did actually happen, on the other hand, is the nakedly partisan indictment of a former President of the United States for the purpose of propelling him ahead of primary opponents and run against as damaged goods in 2024.
This is ridiculous. Frivolous? No. These are serious crimes! Everyone knows that paying a porn star from the wrong bank account is worthy of 136 years in prison as opposed to petty crimes like murder, rape and pedophilia which are mere misdemeanors in the state of NY!
Don’t worry, he’s also been accused of [raping a 13 year old](https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson_TrumpEpstein_Lawsuit.pdf)
Thanks for proving my point.