volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@LevZadov Don't discount that we do directly elect our representatives.

And that's the point, we need to do a better job with the direct democracy that we have. Unfortunately too many people overlook it, missing the trees for the forest, and end up promoting these unhealthy situations.

@LevZadov

Bizarre to talk about voters not having control and democracy not existing in context of a system of voters voting and democratically empowering officials.

No, that's just conspiracy theory that doesn't really match reality.

In reality, we voted for this mess. We should stop submitting our votes for a bunch of idiots, but we did and we do.

Yay democracy.

@thegardendude

I think you're falling for some sensational headlines.

No, a SCOTUS ruling on the VRA here will not create a permanent Republican control of government. That's nonsense, but such headlines will drive clicks.

Heck, as it stands, the confusion that has been existing in the VRA has made more room for political trickery. SCOTUS clarity will put things on a more solid footing to fight that kind of thing.

@ferricoxide I don't think you understand what's going on here.

Firstly, the LA redistricting case isn't about one party rule. It's about settling a longstanding contradiction in law that has vexed courts for decades and left officials around the country without clear rules for how they should conduct elections.

But as for hearings, many of the folks we elect to congress LIKE those exchanges because they can fundraise and score political points off of them.

We keep electing stupid and combative congresspeople so it's no surprise that they set up stupid and combative hearings.

The rules don't need to be changes as they're working exactly as intended. We should probably change the congresspeople, though.

@transience

C-SPAN

@Geoffberner But how is it supposed to work?

My worry is that this stuff is actually going to empower Trump even farther because it lacks a coherent and workable strategy.

Trump supporters are going to be emboldened by this stuff just as they were emboldened by things before the election. Arguably that stuff got him elected.

I understand that this stuff is well-meaning, but all too often well-meaning things are counterproductive and actually make problems worse.

@europesays The truth is it's not really up to Mike Johnson.

The Speaker of the House only represents House members. If House members wanted to be in session then they would have him call them to session.

The Speaker is not a monarch. He acts only with the approval of the chamber. That's why he's called Speaker as he represents them.

@nat What in the world?

We are watching the government function. The reason we tell people to call their representatives is because government is functioning toward different outcomes than we would prefer.

It's just foolish to say we do not have a functioning government when the functioning government is the problem that we want to address.

@PaulWermer

The Supreme Court ruled the opposite of that, ordering that prosecution of the president and his goons for their actions continue.

Yes, there are a whole lot of politicians misleading the public about what happened, but we need to stop reelecting those jerks and call out the misinformation.

The Supreme Court ruling is public record, and they need to stop seeking power on the back of misleading the public.

@jaykuo

@jackhutton

One of the big reasons there are no cameras is because they fear cameras would lead to performing for the public instead of argument focused on the law.

We actually don't need to see these hearings. Why would we? These aren't our elected officials, that's the legislative branch.

The Supreme Court issues it's rulings in public, and only those rulings really matter. It really doesn't matter what happens in these arguments because only the rulings have effect, and the rulings are based on a ton of things that have nothing to do with these arguments anyway.

I'd even say they should stop releasing audio of the arguments, or put them on a year delay or something like that. All too often we hear folks in these events seem to start making political speeches when that's not how this works.

@n1xnx If you understand the argument it makes perfect sense. In fact it would be nuts to rule the other way.

District drawing is fundamentally political. That is just the truth of it. The Supreme Court merely acknowledges the fact of how the United States is structured, and has been structured, and will continue to be structured unless we go through constitutional amendment to change it.

You can question the sanity, but be ready to understand the answer. No, they are not insane, they are laying out the argument behind their conclusion for us all to see.

@Nonilex that example cuts the other way, though.

The history of Roe v Wade was long and problematic showing the contrast between settled thought and tenuous approaches.

For better or worse, the law before the court right now is in the tenuous category, just like Roe v Wade was.

@popcornreel it's not true at all that section two is the one section that keeps alive voting rights.

Congressional regulation of voting rights is alive and well. It's just that they can't do it in a way that violates the Constitution.

We are, of course, always able to amend the Constitution to allow this sort of discrimination if we want. I just don't think the country has a lot of interest in sanctioning it, though.

@Nonilex The understanding that the 14th amendment prevents discrimination based on race has pretty broad buy-in from across the political spectrum.

To describe it as conservative is a bit off considering how many liberal type folk would take that position as well.

@bargo

I think it's a bit worse than that. It's not so much that Americans are so simple-minded but rather that they are misinformed.

So many Americans who voted for Trump are absolutely capable of deep thought, but the problem is they have been told a lot of things that aren't true.

@wjmaggos

@Lana remember, all districting maps in the United States are gerrymandered. That is just the reality that we need to start with.

In fact, a lot of the legal mess in the US around this topic is that it is arguably legally required that they be gerrymandered. The federal VRA requires it.

The question is not whether it's gerrymandered, the question is how much and for what purpose and where the legal winds are blowing.