Is that what's called a constitutional crisis?
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
66 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26576 readers
1819 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We did it! 🎉🎉🎉
/s
Is this the same Texas map that was drawn up using voting data based on Trump's 2024 victory?
Because if so, does it not then have the potential to water down enough districts to make them swing districts, based off of more recent demographic voting trends?
I don't know enough about polling, statistics and probability to determine if this is a realistic outlook, or just copium.
How poetic would it be if it backfired that way though? We can dream
You pack and you crack.
You either try and pack as many opposition voters into as few districts is possible, or you crack opposition districts and spread their voters to districts you think have enough favorable demographics for you to still win.
But they did all this math based on voter data from the last presidential election, and those demographics have now swung wildly in the other direction, at least according to more recent elections.
So they created a whole bunch of GOP districts that only had a few points of advantage, but that advantage was based off Trump 2024 results.
Is this copium? Maybe, maybe not.
They really did make these decisions based off that voter data, and subsequent election results raise the possibility that they're really fucking up here, but only time will tell if those trends hold.
Is this copium? Maybe, maybe not.
In a place like Texas...... More than likely.
In a state that's closer to a swing state it's easier to over do it with gerrymandering and spread out your support too thin. In a state where there's a lot more support to spread out..... Accidentally fucking up is a little more challenging to do.
Plus, I would find it difficult to believe that political operatives wouldn't be able to grasp the idea that things like the Latino vote from the last election might not be as dependable this year and react accordingly.
You find it hard to believe that MAGA operatives and aligned politicians would do something stupid and counterproductive?
You can go double check, but I'm pretty sure with this go around, they opted to crack their previously packed districts, and they used 2024 Trump voter data to do so.
does it not then have the potential to water down enough districts to make them swing districts,
That's how gerrymandering always works....
You want to get every district to where you'd barely win, and jam all the extra people who would vote against you into as few districts as possible that they will definitely win.
The obvious danger is if you gerrymander too much, and a wave shows up, you could potentially lose everything because you no longer have any "safe" districts.
I've been saying since the beginning that we're better off letting them do all this redistricting ASAP, that way we can start the groundwork to win enough of those close districts to take the whole state government
John Robert's Supreme Court IGNORING the Constitution? I'm SHOCKED!
The Supreme Court is illegitimate
I don't understand why the liberal justices stay there. It's clearly a kangaroo court, issuing unsigned rulings that have no basis in law. Sure, if the liberal justices resigned, they'd just get replaced with MAGA flunkies. But that would have no material affect on rulings, and by staying, the liberals are lending the court legitimacy. Take away that fig leaf, and the illegitimacy will be even more obvious than it already is.
I think they should be leaking the votes for these unsigned orders and also releasing conversations the court is having over these issues.
Just going with the motions does nothing, but they are in a position where they could make a difference by drawing attention to the clear bias and partisanship of the court.
Because in 5-15 years there's a sliver chance the court could be Dem majority/normal. If they all resign that goes to 30 to 40 years.
In the meantime, they're lending their good names to prop up an illegitimate court and support the rise of fascism. So, you know, tradeoffs. 🤷
Oh yeah just better hand it over for the next 50 years when no one else cares about their names or blames them if they do. This is peak lemmy.
Using the constitution to run a nation of this size is like trying to run a modern data center with punch cards.
It needs to go because it’s not effective in curbing abuses, like this ruling shows.